New legislation introduced in California would make significant changes to the state’s FAIR Plan, as regulators and lawmakers seek to address operational and governance concerns identified by the California Department of Insurance.

On Feb. 2, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and Assemblymember Lisa Calderon announced the Make It FAIR Act, also known as AB 1680. The bill proposes a series of reforms intended to improve customer service, claims handling, and transparency within the California FAIR Plan.

“Californians need a reliable and dependable source of insurance in good times and bad times,” Calderon said in a statement. “The California FAIR Plan is our property insurance safety net, and we need this association to work for all Californians.”

Bill Would Require Operational, Financial, And Transparency Reforms

If enacted, the legislation would require the FAIR Plan to introduce a more comprehensive homeowners policy. Currently, policyholders must purchase an additional policy to obtain coverage for water damage, liability when someone is injured on their property, and other protections that are typically standard in the admitted market.

The bill would also require the FAIR Plan to create a formal capital and liquidity management plan. Lawmakers said the measure would increase protection against major wildfires and storms. In addition, the FAIR Plan would need to adopt a climate risk assessment using standards established by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Staffing and planning requirements are also included. The legislation would require the FAIR Plan to hire additional staff to address claims and complaints more quickly and to adopt a strategic plan covering a three to five-year period.

Governance changes would expand public access to the FAIR Plan’s governing process. Under the bill, meetings and documents from the governing committee and its subcommittees would be made publicly accessible. The FAIR Plan would also be required to publish an annual report that includes governance updates, premium rate information, catastrophe response plans, and other operational details.

In addition, the bill would require the FAIR Plan to expedite policyholders' return to the admitted market by using clearinghouse programs created by the state legislature.

Regulators Cite Department Of Insurance Examination Findings

Supporters of the legislation said the proposed reforms are drawn from a recent Report of Examination issued by the California Department of Insurance. According to the department, the report identified systemic problems within the FAIR Plan’s operations and governance.

Those issues, the report found, contributed to delays, denials, and inconsistent claims decisions. Regulators noted that these challenges particularly affected policyholders impacted by the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires.

The Department of Insurance has taken formal legal action against the FAIR Plan over smoke damage claim denials. Hearings in that case are scheduled for later this year.

“Since my first year in office, I’ve pushed the FAIR Plan to modernize, expand coverage, meet basic customer service standards, and treat policyholders fairly, yet its governing board has resisted key reforms and continues to fight others in court,” Lara said in a statement. “The Southern California wildfires and the smoke damage crisis didn’t create these failures; they exposed them.”

Industry Group Raises Concerns About Market Impact

Not all industry stakeholders support the proposed reforms. The American Property Casualty Insurance Association has said it opposes the legislation.

“This legislation is a lose-lose for Californians,” said Nicole Ganley, APCIA assistant vice president for public affairs, in a statement. “Mandates like these are the root cause of California’s insurance crisis. Expanding coverage without sustainable pricing and adequate reserves ultimately reduces consumer choice and strains the entire market.”

Ganley said California should instead focus on sustainable reforms for the state’s insurance market. She also emphasized the original purpose of the FAIR Plan.

“The FAIR Plan was designed to serve as an insurer of last resort, not to replace a healthy private market or take on risks it was never built to support,” she said.

A new insurance provision for the 2026 World Baseball Classic has limited player participation across several national teams, making contract insurability central to tournament preparation.

Under the updated provision, player contracts cannot be insured after a player turns 37. Insurance coverage is required to protect major league teams from financial risk if a player is injured during the tournament. Although player contracts remain fully guaranteed, insurance shifts that financial exposure away from clubs.

Los Angeles Dodgers infielder Miguel Rojas became one of the most visible examples of how the provision affects roster decisions. Rojas, who turns 37 on Feb. 24, was denied insurance coverage and therefore could not receive approval to play for Venezuela. Rojas said the timing and structure of the rule prevented him from remaining available, even as a reserve option, during what he expects to be his final season.

Insurance approval has increasingly influenced roster construction ahead of the tournament. Several high-profile players have also been denied participation because their contracts were not insured. Those players include Venezuela’s Jose Altuve and Puerto Rico’s Francisco Lindor. Puerto Rico is also expected to be without Carlos Correa, Victor Caratini, Emilio Pagan, Jose Berrios, and Alexis Diaz.

As a result, Dr. Jose Quiles, president of the Puerto Rico Baseball Federation, publicly considered withdrawing Puerto Rico from the tournament. Puerto Rico is scheduled to host Pool A from March 6 to March 11 at Hiram Bithorn Stadium in San Juan.

Insurance for the World Baseball Classic is arranged by NFP, which has insured multiple iterations of the tournament through agreements with Major League Baseball and the MLB Players Association. The tournament itself pays the insurance policy. In prior tournaments, insurance coverage has directly affected club obligations. In 2023, for example, the New York Mets did not have to pay Edwin Diaz after he suffered a season-ending knee injury while representing Puerto Rico.

Players face varying levels of insurability based on injury classifications. According to sources familiar with the process, players are labeled as chronic, intermediate, or low risk. A player may be classified as chronic if they spent at least 60 days on the injured list the previous season, missed two of their team’s final three games due to injury, underwent surgery after the season, had more than one surgery during their career, or landed on the injured list on the final day of August.

Contract size also influences insurability. Despite Rojas being on a one-year, $5.5 million contract and not spending time on the injured list last season, his age alone disqualified his contract from coverage. The new provision states that once a player turns 37, their contract cannot be insured. If a player turns 37 midseason, coverage only applies through June.

Teams may still allow players to participate without insurance by assuming the risk themselves. The Detroit Tigers previously took that approach with Miguel Cabrera. It remains unclear whether the Dodgers will do the same for Rojas. With World Baseball Classic rosters due Tuesday and announcements scheduled for Thursday night, decisions must be made on a tight timeline.

Rojas said he received a HIPAA authorization form that would have allowed NFP to further review his medical history, but he received the request too late to pursue alternate solutions.

As preparations continue, insurance requirements remain a determining factor for player availability, shaping national rosters and influencing participation across the tournament.