Many people are wondering if disability insurance will cover them if they come down with COVID-19. The answer, as is often the case, is a qualified yes.
There are basically three types of disability income insurance: Employer-paid disability insurance, Social Security disability benefits and individual disability income insurance policies.
Short-term disability insurance may cover coronavirus if your illness requires medical quarantine that leaves you unable to complete your work.
For disability coverage to apply “there has to be a medical reason you can’t work” according to Nicholas Mancuso, manager of the disability and advanced planning team at Policygenius. Social quarantines, such as when states mandate that people work from home, do not qualify you for disability benefits.
Some survivors of COVID-19 are reporting lingering symptoms, including fatigue, joint pain, and shortness of breath. These people may be eligible for long-term disability.
“It’s generally more difficult to qualify for long-term disability benefits with the coronavirus because of elimination periods for long-term policies,” said Mancuso.
The elimination period of a disability insurance policy is how long you must be unable to work — for medical reasons — before you can start receiving benefits. Long-term disability policies have elimination periods of at least 90 days.
Employer-paid disability insurance is required in most states, and so is the most common. Most employers provide some short-term sick leave. Many larger employers provide short-term and long-term disability coverage as well, typically with benefits of up to 60 percent of salary lasting from five years to age 65. In some cases, long-term disability insurance is extended for life. Disability benefits from employer paid policies are subject to income tax.
However, individual disability income insurance policies are the best way to ensure adequate income in the event of disability for most workers, even those with some employer-paid coverage. When you buy a private disability income policy, you can expect to replace from 50 percent to 70 percent of income. Insurers won’t replace all your income because they want you to have an incentive to return to work. However, when you pay the premiums yourself, disability benefits are not taxed.
But unfortunately not many people have individual disability income insurance. More than half of U.S. workers forego disability coverage, according to a recent study. And baby boomers, who are more likely to get injured or sick, are even more likely to forego the coverage (7 out of 10).
If you are 40 years old, you have about a 40 percent chance that between now and age 65 you’ll be disabled for 90 days or more for any reason. Injury accounts for 10-15 percent of the reasons why people have long-term disability. Illness is the other 85-90 percent. And if you are disabled for 90 days or more, there is about a 50 percent chance that you’ll continue to be disabled for up to two years, according to Triple-I’s chief economist Dr. Steven Weisbart.
Between June and August, the CDC says, COVID-19 was most prevalent in people between the ages of 20 and 29.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week provided new data on the spread of COVID-19 that diverges sharply from past reports and is something health and workers compensation insurance providers will want to incorporate into their claims projections.
In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC says that between June and August the virus was most prevalent in people between the ages of 20 and 29, accounting for more than 20 percent of all confirmed cases. It went on to say that “across the southern United States in June 2020, increases in percentage of positive [COVID-19] test results among adults aged 20-39 years preceded increases among those aged ≥60 years” by between four and 15 days.
Most of the workforce
“This has profound implications for claims made against health insurance and workers comp,” says Dr. Steven N. Weisbart, CLU, Triple-I’s senior vice president and chief economist. “Early in the pandemic, COVID-19 was most common among adults age 70 or older – people who are mostly retired. Now, the CDC says, more than 50 percent of confirmed cases during the referenced period were among people between 20 and 49. This is the segment of the population that makes up most of the workforce and tends to have health and life insurance.”
They also are the most mobile portion of the population, more likely than the elderly and infirm to spread the infection to co-workers, friends, and family before they know they have it.
Indicating how significant the shift has been, Weisbart points out that in May the most affected age group was still 80 and older, with a case incidence of 4.04 per 1,000 population. In August the most affected age group was 20-29 (case incidence: 4.17 per 1,000).
“By August,” Weisbart says, “the case incidence of the 80-plus group was down to 2.61 per 1,000.”
Expanded workers comp coverage
The ultimate impact of the pandemic on workers compensation is still not clear. It generally doesn’t cover illnesses like a cold or flu because they can’t be tied to the workplace. Before the pandemic, the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) says, at least 18 states had policies that presumed firefighters’ and other first responders’ chronic lung or respiratory illnesses are work-related and therefore covered.
Since the pandemic, some states have extended coverage to include health care workers and other essential employees. A common approach is to amend state policy so COVID-19 infections in certain workers are presumed to be work related. This puts the burden on the employer and insurer to prove the infection was not work-related, making it easier for workers to file successful claims.
Dr. Steven N. Weisbart, CLU, Triple-I Senior Vice President and Chief Economist
“The FOMC’s action will likely keep longer-term rates exceptionally low for several years more.”
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve Board recently spelled out its objectives and strategies for at least the next several years—describing a financial framework they will maintain longer than the timeframe they typically describe. The length and parameters of this framework will have significant impact on the property/casualty industry.
The FOMC says it will hold short-term interest rates near zero, likely for several years—perhaps to 2023, quite possibly longer. Insurers don’t invest much in short-term instruments – to the extent that they do, it’s to have cash available to pay claims. They primarily invest in intermediate- and longer-term bonds and similar fixed-rate interest-paying instruments that provide steady income, which, together with premiums, covers claims and operating expenses. Insurers raise and lower premiums – partly in response to changes in investment income – to sustain profitable operations.
Because yields on these investments generally track short-term rates, the FOMC’s action will likely keep longer-term rates exceptionally low for several years more.
One signpost the Fed will use to decide when to raise rates is when inflation, as measured by the Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) deflator, is sustained at over 2 percent such that the average inflation rate including recent years equals 2 percent. To appreciate what this means, consider Figure 1.It shows that, since 2012, the PCE deflator has been below 2% (vs. same month, prior year) most of the time. The average over this span was 1.40%. But the Fed might not go back that far to calculate its long-run average. For example, since 2017 the PCE deflator averaged 1.69%. If the deflator averages 2.4% from now through 2023, the average from 2017 through 2023 will be 2.01%.
Figure 1
Rates falling since the 1980s
Based on the FOMC’s new framework, intermediate- and longer-term interest rates will, at best, remain at their current historically depressed levels for several years. One consequence of this is that bonds insurers hold to maturity and roll over will be reinvested at lower rates than they currently yield.
Prevailing interest rates have been generally falling since the early 1980s. Figure 2 shows this decline since 2002, as proxied by the yield on constant-maturity 10-year U.S. Treasury notes (the blue line), and its effect on the portfolio yield for the P/C insurance industry over the last two decades (the gold bars).
Figure 2
P/C insurers invest mainly in bonds, but not just U.S. Treasury securities. They also invest in corporate and municipal bonds, both of which generally yield higher rates than U.S. Treasury bonds because they are riskier. Yields on corporate and municipal bonds will likely loosely track Treasury yields.
P/C insurers also receive investment income from dividends on common and preferred stock they hold. These dividends are likely to be affected by corporate profits, which might be depressed for at least as long as the current recession lasts.
A shift to shorter maturities?
How will the insurers respond to these persistent conditions? If recent behavior is any guide, they are likely to shift to shorter-maturity bonds to retain the flexibility to switch back to longer-term, higher-yielding investments when rates eventually rise again. Figure 3 shows this pattern of shortening maturities during the years since 2009 as prevailing rates fell. From 2009 to 2019, the percent of bonds with one-to-five-year maturities rose from 36% to 41%, but those with 10 or more years of maturity fell from 19% to 11%.
Figure 3
What’s notable about this strategy is that – since shorter-term bonds yield less than longer-term bonds – the shift results in an even lower portfolio yield than the industry would have achieved if maturities were unchanged over this time span. It sacrifices near-term opportunities for the flexibility to eventually seize longer-term gains.
If the insurers continue this strategy, the shift to shorter-term bonds, combined with continued low interest rates, could lead to a scenario over the next five years that looks like Figure 4, which includes 2015-2019 yields for historical context.
Figure 4
Of course, future portfolio yields might be different from this scenario. For example, insurers might realize significant capital gains or losses. The portfolio yield in 2012, for example, was nearly two percentage points above the U.S. Treasury 10-year yield that year due to realized capital gains.
On the other hand, if interest rates rise, low-yielding bonds that are available for sale would suffer unrealized capital losses, which would be a direct reduction in policyholder’s surplus.
In a typical year the industry posts capital gains of $5 billion to $10 billion, but any number outside this range would affect the portfolio yield for that year. Capital losses also could result from investments affected by bankruptcies or other business setbacks caused by the recession. Impaired bonds would have to be accounted for on the balance sheet.
The U.K. High Court last week issued a ruling involving business-interruption claims against policies issued by eight insurers. Jason Schupp of the Centers for Better Insurance says the ruling is a “mixed bag” for U.K. insurers and policyholders and has little relevance for their U.S. counterparts.
In the U.K. case, Schupp writes, “the fundamental theme running through the insurers’ defense was that the policies only covered localized outbreaks, not global pandemics.”
“More to the point for U.S. property/casualty insurers,” says Michael Menapace, a professor of insurance law at Quinnipiac University School of Law and a Triple-I non-resident scholar, the U.K. case involved disease coverage – “an affirmative coverage not included in most U.S. commercial property policies.”
U.S. business interruption disputes so far have turned on two key policy features:
U.S. business-interruption coverage almost always requires property damage to trigger a payout.
Nearly all U.S. COVID-19-related court cases have involved policies that specifically exclude viruses.
“The U.K. court did not address either the question of property damage or the applicability of a virus exclusion,” Schupp writes.
As Menapace put it in a recent blog post about U.S. business-interruption cases, “Policy language controls whether COVID-19 interruptions are covered…. The threshold issue [for U.S. insurers] will be whether the insureds can prove their business losses are caused by ‘physical damage to property’.”
Perhaps the most emotionally compelling data point invoked by those who would compel insurers – through litigation and legislation – to pay business-interruption claims explicitly excluded from the policies they wrote is the property/casualty insurance industry’s nearly $800 billion policyholder surplus.
Many Americans hear “surplus” and think of a bit of cash they have stashed away for emergencies. And when you consider that nearly 40 percent of Americans surveyed by the Federal Reserve said they would either have to borrow or sell something to cover an unexpected $400 expense – or couldn’t pay it at all – that number may sound like overkill.
Not as much as you think
But policyholder surplus isn’t a “rainy day fund.” It’s an essential part of the industry’s ability to keep the promises it makes to policyholders. And although a number like $800 billion may raise eyebrows, when we look more closely at its components, the amount available to cover claims turns out to be considerably less.
Insurers are regulated on a state-by-state basis. Regulators require them to hold a certain amount in reserve to pay claims based on each insurer’s own risk profile. The aggregation of these reserves – required by every state for every insurer doing business in those states – accounts for about half the oft-cited industry surplus.
Call it $400 billion, for simplicity’s sake.
Each company’s regulator-required surplus can be thought of as that company’s “running on empty” mark – the point at which alarms go off and regulators start talking about requiring it to set even more aside to make sure no policyholders are left in a lurch.
By extension, $400 billion is where alarms begin going off for the entire industry.
It gets worse – or better, depending on your perspective.
In addition to state regulators’ requirements, the private rating agencies that gauge insurers’ financial strength and claims-paying ability don’t want to see reserves get anywhere near “Empty.” To get a strong rating from A.M. Best, Fitch, S&P, or Moody’s, insurers have to keep even more in reserve.
Why do private agency ratings matter? Consumers and businesses use them to determine what insurer they’ll buy coverage from. Also, stronger ratings can contribute to lower borrowing expenses, which can help keep insurers’ operating costs – and, in turn, policyholders’ premiums – at reasonable levels.
So, let’s say these additional reserves amount to about $200 billion for the industry. The nearly $800 billion surplus we started with now falls to about $200 billion.
To cover claims by all personal and commercial policyholders in a given year without prompting regulatory and rating agency actions that could drive up insurers’ costs and policyholders’ premiums.
Which brings us to today.
Losses ordinary and extraordinary
In the first quarter of 2020, the industry experienced its largest-ever quarterly decline in surplus, to $771.9 billion. This decline was due, in large part, to declines in stock value related to the economic recession sparked by the coronavirus pandemic.
Nevertheless, the industry remains financially strong, in large part because the bulk of insurers’ investments are in investment-grade corporate and governmental bonds. And it’s a good thing, too, because the conditions underlying that surplus decline preceded an extremely active hurricane season, atypical wildfire activity, and damages related to civil unrest approaching levels not seen since 1992 – involving losses that are not yet reflected in the surplus.
Insured losses from this year’s Hurricane Isaias are estimated in the vicinity of $5 billion. Hurricane Laura’s losses could, by some estimates, be as “small” as $4 billion or as large as $13 billion.
And the Atlantic hurricane season has not yet peaked.
The 2020 wildfire season is off to a horrific start. From January 1 to September 8, 2020, there were 41,051 wildfires, compared with 35,386 in the same period in 2019, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. About 4.7 million acres were burned in the 2020 period, compared with 4.2 million acres in 2019.
In California alone, wildfires have already burned 2.2 million acres in 2020 — more than any year on record. For context, insured losses for California’s November 2018 fires were estimated at more than $11 billion.
And the 2020 wildfire season still has a way to go.
All this is on top of routine claims for property and casualty losses.
Four billion here, 11 billion there – pretty soon we’re talking about “real money,” against available reserves that are far smaller than they at first appear.
No end in sight
Oh, yeah – and the pandemic-fueled recession isn’t expected to reverse any time soon. Economic growth worldwide remains depressed, with nearly every country experiencing declines in gross domestic product (GDP) – the total value of goods and services produced. GDP growth for the world’s 10 largest insurance markets is expected to decrease by 6.99 percent in 2020, compared to Triple-I’s previous estimate of a 4.9 percent decrease.
If insurers were required to pay business-interruption claims they never agreed to cover – and, therefore, didn’t reserve for – the cost to the industry related to small businesses alone could be as high as $383 billion per month.
This would bankrupt the industry, leaving many policyholders uninsured and insurance itself an untenable business proposition.
Fortunately, Americans seem to be beginning to get this. A recent poll by Future of American Insurance and Reinsurance (FAIR) found the majority of Americans believe the federal government should bear the financial responsibility for helping businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic. Only 16 percent of respondents said insurers should bear the responsibility, and only 8 percent said they believe lawsuits against insurers are the best path for businesses to secure financial relief.
Business interruption losses from a global pandemic are uninsurable due to their sheer scope. Business interruption losses (in the U.S. alone) from the coronavirus are estimated at $220-$383 billion per month — an amount the industry could not and should not be expected to cover.
Americans across the country appear to recognize that only the federal government has the capacity to provide the relief business owners need. A recent poll initiated by Future of American Insurance and Reinsurance (FAIR) found that the majority of Americans believe the government should bear the financial responsibility for helping businesses stay afloat during the coronavirus pandemic.
The poll, conducted by CivicScience, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they believe insurance companies should bear the responsibility for helping businesses during the pandemic, and only 8 percent believe lawsuits against insurers are the best path for businesses to secure financial relief.
Business interruption insurance contracts were not priced to cover global pandemic risks, so forcing insurers to pay for claims their policies weren’t priced to cover would harm all policyholders, said FAIR in their commentary on the poll results.
A government-backed policy solution can provide immediate relief to struggling business owners and protect insurers’ ability to keep promises to policyholders for covered catastrophe losses, like damage from wildfires and hurricanes.
Trial attorneys’ attempts to retroactively force uninsurable pandemic coverage in business interruption insurance contracts are detrimental to policyholders, communities, insurers, and economic growth. A government-backed solution for struggling businesses in need of relief has never been more urgently needed, FAIR concluded.
ABOUT FAIR FAIR is an initiative of the Insurance Information Institute and its member companies whose mission is to ensure fairness for all customers and safeguard the industry’s longstanding role as a pillar of economic growth and stability.
The COVID-19 pandemic continues to depress economic growth around the world, with nearly every country experiencing declines in gross domestic product (GDP) – the total value of goods and services produced. GDP growth for the world’s 10 largest insurance markets is expected to decrease by 6.99 percent in 2020, compared to Triple-I’s previous estimate of a 4.9 percent decrease.
Forward-looking growth proxies, such as interest rates, government spending, equity markets, and commodity prices, are sending mixed to negative messages about growth into 2021.
Against this backdrop, Triple-I experts report, the global insurance industry has continued to issue new policies, service existing ones, and process and pay claims. While the final numbers on the extent of the pandemic and recession’s impact on the industry won’t be clear until 2021-2022, early indicators point to flat premium growth in 2020 globally and to significant differences in how the pandemic, monetary policy, and the recession are affecting insurers in the United States versus abroad.
In its Global Macro and Insurance Outlook for the third quarter, published this week,Triple-I noted that global central banks kept benchmark interest rates mostly on hold in the third quarter at an average of 0.6 percent, reflecting the limits imposed by near-zero interest rates policies.
Concerns about lower long-term interest rates are increasing as global central banks have pushed rates even lower during the pandemic, the report says. In a recent survey, about 33 percent of U.S. insurers said they assume flat long-term benchmark rates, while 50 percent reported having changed, or say they are in the process of changing, their investment strategy. These changes are likely to accelerate now that the U.S. Federal Reserve officially changed the focus of its monetary policy and central banks around the world follow.
Interest rates matter because insurers get the bulk of their profits from investment earnings. U.S. insurers, in particular, rely on fixed-income financial instruments like corporate and government bonds. If lower interest rates put pressure on insurers’ investment earnings, they will have to compensate by raising premiums paid by policyholders or adjusting their risk profiles to reduce claim payouts.
“COVID-19 and lower economic activity continue to hinder premium growth in property, workers compensation, and auto,” the report says, “while a recent survey indicates that COVID-19 led to a reduction in life premium.”
The report says it’s too early to determine whether increasing demand for warranty, indemnity, and cyber coverage and a surge of interest in captive insurers will make up for downward pressure on premium growth across the industry.
U.S. insurers and their foundations by June 2020 had donated about $280 million in response to COVID-19, the Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I) estimates based on information collected by the Insurance Industry Charitable Foundation (IICF)
International insurers and their foundations donated an additional $150 million.
U.S. auto insurers have returned more than $14 billion to their customers nationwide in response to reduced driving during the pandemic, according to a Triple-I estimate.
Individual companies are working to alleviate the crisis by donating to global relief efforts and easing the financial burden on their customers. We reported on some of these activities in April.
Below is list of what just a sample of Triple-I’s member companies have contributed to ease a wide array of community needs.
The Allstate Foundation contributed $5 million to help domestic violence victims, youth in need and first responders.
American Family Insurance, along with the American Family Insurance Dreams Foundation, announced more than $4 million in support for COVID-19 pandemic relief and other non-profit efforts. Additional support from the Steve Stricker American Family Insurance Foundation is expected to push the total support to more than $6.8 million.
Chubb is focusing its global pandemic relief efforts on organizations that provide emergency medical supplies to healthcare facilities, to food banks helping the vulnerable and hungry, and for scientific research to treat and prevent this disease. The company announced $12.5 million in grants toward these efforts.
Liberty Mutual’s philanthropy program has committed $15 million in crisis grants to community partners helping respond to the coronavirus; given donations to over 800 nonprofits they partner with in their employee volunteering program; supported employees’ donations with company gifts; and created an employee phone outreach program to call those in the community who are socially isolated.
MetLife Foundation announced that it is committing $25 million to the global response to COVID-19 in support of communities impacted by the pandemic. The grant funding from MetLife Foundation will span all regions where MetLife operates and address both short- and longer-term relief efforts.
MAPFRE is allocating 54 million euros to support customers and suppliers. This is in addition to 5 million euros recently donated to accelerate COVID-19 research in Spain.
Nationwide Foundation is making $5 million in contributions to local and national charities to support medical and economic response efforts.
In addition to delivering $4.2 billion in savings to its customers, State Farm is donating millions to pandemic relief efforts.
The Hanover is donating $500,000 to local community nonprofits to provide pandemic-related assistance, including, $350,000 to local United Way, Boys & Girls Club and Chamber of Commerce organizations in Massachusetts and Michigan where the company employs large concentrations of employees
The Hartford committed $1 million in donations focused on responding to urgent human needs, the health care crisis and the city of Hartford through organizations that have been critical in addressing the humanitarian issues caused by this crisis.
Travelers pledged $5 million to assist families and communities across North America, the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The money goes to charities that provide essential services, pays wages and health benefits for eligible third-party contract employees, and contributes toward an employee donation matching program.
USAA has committed an additional $30 million to benefit 24 organizations assisting military families during these challenging economic times. The donation is part of USAA’s long-standing mission to support military and veterans’ families and recognizes the specific impact the health crisis has had on the military community.
Westfield Insurance will contribute nearly a million dollars toward nonprofit partners whose work became infinitely more challenging with this pandemic. The company is working with the Akron Canton Foodbank, Cleveland Foodbank, United Way of Cleveland, Feeding Medina County and Feeding America. Additionally, the Westfield Insurance Foundation is matching dollar for dollar up to $50 for every employee who gives to a local foodbank or United Way.
Tell us how your company is contributing to the pandemic relief efforts in the comments below.
Under the best of circumstances, the Atlantic hurricane season is a challenging time. Despite improved forecasting and analytical tools, pre-storm communication, and engineering, hurricane-related losses continue to climb.
But the 2020 season hasn’t come during the best of circumstances. This extremely active season arrived on the heels of a pandemic that hasn’t ebbed, accompanied by civil unrest and atypical wildfire activity that could draw attention and resources away from preparation and post-storm aid.
And, as if that wasn’t enough, it falls in the middle of what is arguably the most contentious, chaotic U.S. election year in modern history.
To say these new variables complicate resilience would be a gross understatement in a year whose (to use the technical insurance phrase) “general weirdness” would be difficult to overstate.
So, in a paper published today we review the current state of hurricane resilience – how forecasting, modeling, preparation, and mitigation have evolved – and how the insurance industry is working to help communities bounce back from hurricanes.
Demographics more than climate change
Nine of the 10 costliest hurricanes in U.S. history have occurred since 2004, and 2017, 2018, and 2019 were the largest back-to-back-to-back insured property loss years in U.S. history. Many would instinctively chalk up such numbers to climate change. But a careful look at the data suggests climate change isn’t the predominant driver of losses.
U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that the number of housing units in the United States increased most dramatically since 1940 in areas that are most vulnerable to weather-related damage. They also show that new homes are bigger and more expensive than in past decades.
Bigger homes full of more valuables, more cars and infrastructure in disaster-prone locales – these, more than climate trends, seem to be the dominant factors driving losses.
Not more, but wetter
Hurricanes may not be more frequent or significantly more intense due to climate change, but they seem to be getting wetter. Inland flooding has caused more deaths in the United States in the past 30 years than any other hurricane-related threat.
Early in the 2020 season, Tropical Storm Cristobal made landfall along southeastern Louisiana and triggered flash flooding as far inland as northwest Wisconsin.
“As the atmosphere continues to warm, storms can hold more moisture and bring more rainfall,” said Triple-I non-resident scholar and Colorado State University atmospheric scientist Dr. Philip Klotzbach. This trend could be exacerbated if, as some experts expect, storms begin traveling more slowly, adding to the moisture they would pick up from the ocean and drop over land.
Our paper also looks at the evolution of hurricane modeling and forecasting, as well as developments in preparation and mitigation.
Better data and improved modeling have made private insurers comfortable writing coverage, like flood insurance, that was previously considered “untouchable” and enabled the creation of entirely new types of insurance products.
But challenges remain. Experts disagree as to which models are best, and the proprietary nature of these models can make it hard for regulators to determine whether filed rates based on them are unfairly discriminatory.
Hurricane preparation and damage mitigation have benefited from improved communication and public planning.
“Many people still don’t evacuate the way they should,” says Todd Blachier of Church Mutual Insurance, “but states like Louisiana, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi have gotten much better in terms of shutting down inbound roads and creating one-way egress to facilitate evacuation.”
He says officials are acting much more quickly and communicating more effectively, thanks in large part to improved information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and other resources.
One area in which improvements could boost resilience is building codes and standards. A recent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study quantified the losses avoided due to buildings being constructed according to modern, hazard-resistant codes and standards. In California and Florida — two of the most catastrophe-prone states — FEMA found adopting and enforcing modern codes over the past 20 years led to a long-term average future savings of $1 billion per year for those two states combined.
Those of us who aren’t directly affected may have become jaded enough to think, “More fires in the West. That’s normal.”
But as Janet Ruiz, Triple-I’s California-based director of strategic communications, explains, “We’ve had a significant number of large wildfires since 2015, but this year is anything but normal.”
Your first clue might be the alphabet soup of names applied to this year’s blazes: LNU, CZU, SCU. You might remember Northern California’s major wildfires in recent years — the Camp Fire, the Carr Fire, Tubbs, Ferguson — and wonder why this year’s don’t have similarly straightforward names.
According to California fire officials, it’s because the number of fires has required them to be grouped together in “complexes”:
The LNU Lightning Complex in the northeast Bay Area, including Sonoma, Napa, Solano, and Lake counties.
The CZU Lightning Complex in the western and southern Bay Area, including San Mateo and Santa Cruz counties.
The SCU Lightning Complex in the eastern and southeastern Bay Area, including Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, and neighboring San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties.
“We only group fires like that when we have a lightning siege as such,” Brice Bennet, a public information officer for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), told the San Francisco Chronicle.
The last major lightning siege was in 2008.
“Once the fires are grouped into a complex,” the Chronicle explains, “they’re managed so fire managers can assess all the different fires within each one and share resources across the greatest need — life being first, and property second. That’s where the prefixes come in. Those monikers are geographical locators based on Cal Fire administrative unit codes.”
Ruiz explained that many of the fires since 2015 were caused by human activity, rather than nature.
“Authorities have worked hard and invested a lot of money to mitigate those causes,” she said. “Then along comes this unpredictable, unpreventable abundance of lightning strikes.”
Fewer firefighters: Thanks, COVID-19
The daunting number of blazes coincides with a reduced availability of firefighters, courtesy of the coronavirus pandemic.
“In past seasons, a lot of help came from inmates recruited to assist in firefighting,” Ruiz said. “Many of these have been released because of COVID-19 and therefore aren’t available.”
Less warning, preparation paramount
Lightning is a universal metaphor for random ill fortune, and the chaotic causation of California’s 2020 fires has affected how authorities communicate with residents about impending threats.
“Normally you’d get warnings about approaching fires, followed, if necessary, by a mandatory evacuation order,” Ruiz said. But last week, when Ruiz was evacuated, “We didn’t get an advisory – we were just told to go.”
Wisely, she and her husband keep “to go” bags near their front door and were able to leave within 10 minutes of receiving the order.
