January 17, 2026 ‍ ‍

With insurance companies re-rating parts of Los Angeles as “high fire risk,” I’m waiting on a new quote. My home is fully paid off — no mortgage.

If the State ultimately overrules the City of LA and Zone 0 is imposed, can a homeowner legally refuse to carry fire insurance?

I know people of retirement age who lost paid-off homes in the Palisades, sold the land, and chose to walk away rather than rebuild or endure years of stress.

Meanwhile, even without a fire, Zone 0 is already causing enormous stress for homeowners — and my sense is that fewer than 10% of Angelenos are even aware this is coming?

Answer:

Dear Mortgage-Free Homeowner In the Fire-Zone,

This is a very reasonable question — and you’re not alone in feeling overwhelmed right now.

Let’s separate what is legally required from what is being pressured, because those two things are increasingly being blurred.

If your home is paid off and you do not have a mortgage, there is no California law that requires you to carry homeowners or fire insurance. Full stop. Insurance is a contractual requirement imposed by lenders, not the State. When the mortgage is gone, the legal mandate disappears with it.

That doesn’t mean insurance is unimportant — it means it is a personal financial decision, not a legal obligation.

Zone 0, even if finalized at the state level, does not create a requirement to buy insurance. Nor does it guarantee coverage, prevent loss, or obligate insurers to insure you. What it does is function as a risk-management and liability framework — one that insurers may use to justify pricing, exclusions, or nonrenewals, regardless of whether the science actually supports blanket vegetation removal as a path to safety.

This is where many homeowners feel trapped:
“If I don’t comply, I’ll lose insurance. If I comply, I may lose the landscape, shade, privacy, and ecological function that made my home livable in the first place — and I still may lose insurance anyway.”

For some people, especially those later in life, the calculation becomes brutally pragmatic. As you noted, some homeowners who lost paid-off homes in the Palisades chose to sell the land and walk away rather than rebuild under years of regulatory, financial, and emotional strain. That choice isn’t irrational — it’s a response to a system that increasingly shifts risk and responsibility onto individuals while offering no real assurance in return.

What concerns me most is that this stress is happening now — before any fire, and before Zone 0 is even finalized. Homeowners are being told they must act immediately, decisively, and expensively, often under threat of insurance loss, with little acknowledgment of uncertainty, tradeoffs, or personal circumstance.

You’re also right that public awareness is shockingly low. Most Angelenos have no idea this is coming until a notice arrives in their inbox or mailbox — and by then, it feels like an emergency rather than a policy discussion.

So yes:
– You can refuse insurance if your home is paid off.
– You can decide that the cost — financial, ecological, or emotional — is too high.
– And you are allowed to weigh risk, age, resources, and quality of life in that decision.

What you should not be told is that there is only one “responsible” choice. There isn’t.

Fire safety is real. Trauma is real. But so is the harm caused by overselling certainty, simplifying complex risk, and pressuring people into irreversible decisions without honest discussion.