Washington Reels Amid Rising Wildfire Risk Scores Hike Insurance Rates

In Stevens County, specifically Stevens Fire District 1, there is growing tension between local fire leadership and insurance practices related to wildfire risk assessment. Chief Mike Bucy’s press release argues that insurers—and third-party risk scoring consultants—are largely unregulated in how they determine risk, which directly influences premium costs and eligibility for homeowner insurance. He emphasizes that these models overlook fire district response capabilities and that there is a lack of accountability in existing oversight.

Recent work by the Washington Wildfire Mitigation and Resiliency Standards Work Group provides corroborating evidence. Established by Substitute House Bill 1539, the group’s final report delivered in December 2025 recommends enhancements around wildfire mitigation, better data sharing, and improved risk transparency. Among its recommendations are that insurers should track and report how often wildfire risk factors materially contribute to nonrenewals or rate adjustments; share wildfire risk scores—and an explanation—with consumers; and expand grant programs aimed at reducing structural and landscape vulnerability to wildfires. However, all of these remain recommendations rather than binding requirements.

Statutory law could provide more direct leverage. Washington Revised Code § 48.19.390 prohibits insurers from withholding information or providing misleading data that affects insurance rates. If wildfire risk models or score disclosures are opaque or misrepresented, this statute may be a legal basis for requiring insurers to justify their practices or face regulatory challenge.

Independent journalism and data reveal that nonrenewals and rate hikes tied to wildfire risk scoring are occurring in multiple counties—Chelan, Leavenworth, Benton, Franklin—especially in rural or forested regions east of the Cascades. Some homeowners say they have made mitigation efforts yet still see coverage dropped or premiums double. Brokers note rising reliance on surplus-lines carriers or the state FAIR Plan when traditional insurers decline coverage. The Office of Insurance Commissioner has begun collecting data via nonrenewal/cancellation data calls by ZIP code and reason.

Strategic implications:

• Insurers face potential legal exposure under existing state law if risk scoring practices are found to misrepresent or withhold material information affecting rates.
• Lawmakers have an opening to convert voluntary recommendations into binding regulations—mandatory disclosure requirements, rates tied to objective risk assessments, inclusion of fire district capabilities.
• Fire districts could leverage state data to document their contributions to wildfire containment and mitigation, to force inclusion of their role in insurer risk models.
• Homeowners in high-risk areas face growing affordability and accessibility challenges unless regulatory reforms or public assistance (grants, mitigation subsidies) scale quickly.

Open questions:

1. How consistent and accurate are the wildfire risk scores used by different insurers and third-party consultants—do they align with measurable fire response capabilities, recent fire history, and defensible space?
2. Will the Legislature adopt binding obligations (not just recommendations) out of the Work Group’s report, and what timeline?
3. What mechanisms will regulators use to enforce disclosure and prevent arbitrary nonrenewals—will there be appeals, rate review, or judicial oversight?
4. How will fire districts be funded or operationally supported to reinforce claims about their mitigation capacity in risk modeling?