• Office: Insurance Commissioner
• Election Date: June 2, 2026
• Candidate: Benjamin Allen
• Due Date: April 2, 2026
• Printable Version

Thank you for seeking GrowSF's endorsement for the June 2, 2026 primary election! GrowSF believes in a growing, vibrant, healthy, safe, and prosperous city via common sense solutions and effective government.

As a candidate for state office, your day-to-day responsibilities in office will affect not just San Francisco, but California as a whole. As a representative of the people of California and of San Francisco, the policies you bring to Sacramento should reflect the best of what we have to offer.

The GrowSF endorsement committee will review all completed questionnaires and seek consensus on which candidates best align with our vision for San Francisco and have the expertise to enact meaningful policy changes.

We ask that you please complete this questionnaire by April 2, 2026 so we have enough time to adequately review and discuss your answers.

• Your Policy Goals
• Your Leadership
• The Issues
• Personal
• Thank you

Your Policy Goals

We’d like to get some details about your high-level goals and how you intend to use your elected office to achieve them.

What policies do you hope to change or preserve by running for Insurance Commissioner? Please be specific, and list them in order of priority.

My vision is a California where every community can access stable and affordable insurance, where climate resilience is rewarded, and where people can build a future without fear that disasters or rising premiums will push them out of their homes or make it even more difficult to find a home. To achieve that, I will pursue the following priorities:

1. Stabilize the insurance market and expand availability - We need to get insurers writing policies again—especially in wildfire-prone areas—by addressing underlying risk and improving how that risk is evaluated.

2. Lower long-term costs by reducing risk - The only sustainable way to bring down premiums is to reduce risk. That means scaling community-wide wildfire hardening and ensuring those efforts translate into real savings for homeowners.

3. Strengthen consumer protections and accountability - Californians deserve fair treatment when they file a claim. I will make sure the system works for policyholders and that bad actors are held accountable.

Why those policies?

These priorities all point at the same core problem: instability driven by rising risk. If insurers continue to pull back, more Californians get pushed onto the FAIR Plan, costs get spread across the system, and affordability worsens for everyone. Stabilizing the market is the foundation. Reducing risk is how we bring costs down over time. And strong consumer protections ensure people are treated fairly when they need help most. If we don’t address all three together, we won’t get a durable solution.

Explain why your #1 goal is your #1 goal.

Without a functioning market, nothing else works. If coverage isn’t available, it doesn’t matter how strong our consumer protections are or what discounts exist—people simply can’t get insured. Right now, too many Californians are facing non-renewals or limited options. Stabilizing the market and expanding availability is the immediate priority because it creates the foundation to tackle affordability and resilience in a meaningful way.

How will you build the coalition and political capital to enact your #1 goal? What obstacles will you face, and how will you overcome them? Will the power of the office of Insurance Commissioner be enough to achieve this goal?

This only works if you bring people together who don’t always agree—consumer advocates, insurers, firefighters, local governments.

I’ve done that my whole career on tough issues like climate and infrastructure. The key here is being clear about the deal: if insurers get more flexibility to reflect risk, they have to show up and write policies. And consumers need transparency and real protections.

There’s a trust gap on both sides. You close that with accountability.

The Commissioner has real authority, but to fully solve this we’ll need partnership with the Legislature and the Governor—especially on mitigation and affordability.

Will the power of the office of Insurance Commissioner be enough to achieve the other goals?

The Commissioner can do a lot—set the rules of the road, enforce them, and make the system more transparent. But reducing wildfire risk at scale or driving down long-term costs isn’t something one office can do alone. That takes sustained investment and coordination across state and local government. The Commissioner has to lead that conversation.

What is an "out there" change that you would make to state or local government policy, if you could? For the purpose of this question, you are not constrained to the office of Insurance Commissioner.

A state-backed reinsurance or catastrophe fund that lowers costs for insurers, but only if they commit to writing policies in high-risk areas and passing savings on to consumers. If we’re going to step in, it has to come with real accountability.

Your Leadership

We’d like to learn more about your leadership style and plan to execute effectively once you assume office.

Why are you running for Insurance Commissioner?

My north star has always been clear: put the public interest first. After years of leadership on environmental policy and political ethics, transparency, and accountability, that mission came into sharper focus for me when the Palisades Fire erupted in communities I have represented for more than a decade in the State Senate.

For me, the Palisades and Eaton Fires underscored what we have known for years: our world is changing beneath our feet. I am running for Insurance Commissioner because California needs urgent, practical leadership to make our insurance system adaptable to the realities of a changing world if we want to keep California affordable and livable.

In your own words - or, in internet parlance, "Explain like I’m five" (ELI5) - what is insurance?

Insurance, at its core, is a relatively simple idea: that would hopefully work out for all those involved… Many homeowners put a small amount of money every month to an insurance company, with the promise that if something happens to their home – the insurance company will then pay them to replace it. It all falls on the idea that risk is low enough that if so many homeowners put in small amounts of money, it is likely that only a few of them will need to be paid a larger amount, and most will never need to get the money back that they have put into this “pot” over the years. That way, the insurance companies are able to pay some of these homeowners those larger payments, and still walk away with profit – encouraging them to try and insure more individuals. The problem, of course, that we face now – is that risk has just escalated so exponentially.

What exactly is the role and statutory responsibilities of the Insurance Commissioner?

California’s elected Insurance Commissioner has one core mission – consumer protection.

The Commissioner oversees the California Department of Insurance, the consumer protection agency for the nation's largest insurance marketplace that safeguards all of the state’s consumers by fairly regulating the insurance industry. The Department enforces the insurance laws of California and has authority over how insurers and licensees conduct business in the state.

Among the Commissioner’s responsibilities are:

• protecting Californians from insurance rates that are excessive, inadequate, or unfairly discriminatory
• approving property and casualty rates, including personal auto and homeowner insurance
• overseeing insurer solvency to pay claims
• setting standards for agents and broker licensing
• performing market conduct reviews of insurance companies
• resolving consumer complaints
• investigating and prosecuting insurance fraud

What makes you uniquely qualified for this position?

I’ve spent over the last decade in the State Senate working at the intersection of insurance, climate, and consumer protection—exactly where California’s insurance crisis sits. In nearly a dozen years in the legislature, I have worked on some of the state’s most complex issues involving risk, infrastructure, and affordability. Much of my work has focused on reducing climate-driven risk—the core issue driving instability in the insurance market. I authored Proposition 4, a $10 billion investment in wildfire risk reduction and water infrastructure, and introduced legislation to help homeowners afford wildfire safety upgrades.

I’m a lawyer, a former local elected official, a son, husband, and father of two.

At the heart of my motivation to run is the experience of representing a major portion of the fire zone in Los Angeles. The Palisades Fire erupted just miles from my home, tearing through a community I grew up near and have represented in the Senate for over a decade. Helping hundreds of constituents who lost everything successfully navigate insurance claims gave me a front-row seat to our broken insurance system. Standing amid smoke, ashes, and uncertainty, I saw what failure looks like.

This role requires someone who understands both the policy and the real-world impacts on families—and who can bring stakeholders together to solve hard problems. That’s the work I’ve been doing my entire career.

What three measurable outcomes should Californians use to evaluate your success after your first two years in office?

More insurers writing and renewing policies again—especially in high-risk areas where coverage has been hardest to find.

A clear reduction in the number of Californians forced onto the FAIR Plan, with it returning to a true backstop instead of the default.

Faster, more reliable claims handling after disasters, with real improvements in response times and fewer consumer complaints.

The Issues

Next, we will cover the issues that voters tell us they care about. We hope to gain a better understanding of your policy positions, and we hope that you use this opportunity to communicate with voters.

Some small businesses in San Francisco complain about too-high rates for event or general liability insurance. Do you think these complaints have merit in general? What reforms ought the office of the Insurance Commissioner make to help small businesses thrive?

Some of these complaints absolutely have merit. For many small businesses, especially restaurants, storefronts, and community event spaces, insurance is becoming one more cost pressure in an already very difficult environment. The role of the Insurance Commissioner is not to artificially suppress rates in a way that makes markets less stable, but to make sure rates are justified, transparent, and not excessive, and that small businesses are not getting squeezed by a market that is not functioning well. I would push for more transparency around why premiums are rising, closer scrutiny of markets where competition has weakened, and a more proactive approach from the Department when particular sectors are seeing real availability or affordability problems. Small businesses that take steps to reduce risk should also see that reflected in what they pay.

Are there currently any homeowners or renters insurance market failures where the Insurance Commissioner ought to step in to fix? What are they, and how would you address them?

Yes. The clearest market failure right now is availability. Too many homeowners are being non-renewed, too many renters are feeling the ripple effects, and too many families are getting pushed onto the FAIR Plan when the private market should be serving them. That is not a healthy insurance market. I would focus on three things: making sure insurers can use tools that reflect real, forward-looking risk; making sure homeowners and communities that invest in mitigation actually receive meaningful premium relief; and holding insurers accountable so that if they receive regulatory flexibility, they are also writing and renewing policies in California. The FAIR Plan should be a true backstop, not the place more and more Californians are forced to land.

Are current policies around earthquake insurance adequate to ensure the state can recover from a hundred-year earthquake? If not, how would you address this?

No, I do not think we are where we need to be on earthquake preparedness or earthquake insurance. A major earthquake would expose how many Californians remain underinsured and how financially vulnerable too many families and communities still are. Only about 10% to 15% of California homeowners have earthquake insurance. Despite the high risk, this represents roughly 1.5 million to 1.6 million households, as many residents opt out due to high premiums and high deductibles. We need to strengthen the California Earthquake Authority, improve public understanding of the risk, and look seriously at affordability and participation so more homeowners actually carry coverage. More broadly, the state should be thinking now about how to better prepare for catastrophic recovery costs before the next major quake hits, rather than after. Earthquake resilience cannot just be about response. It also has to be about financial preparedness.

California’s home-insurance market has faced major disruption, with several large insurers reducing coverage or leaving parts of Los Angeles County and other high risk areas. Are California’s current fire-insurance policies and rate-approval processes adequate for the growing risks along the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI)?

At its core, this is a risk problem and it’s not unique to California. States across the country are facing similar challenges as climate-driven disasters become more frequent and severe. In California, wildfires have driven significant losses, and rebuilding costs have risen sharply due to higher labor and materials costs. That means each claim is more expensive than it was even a few years ago.

At the same time, the system has struggled to keep up with how risk is changing. Insurers have historically relied on backward-looking data, while the cost of reinsurance has increased significantly. When you combine higher and more volatile risk, rising rebuilding costs, increased reinsurance expenses, and a system that hasn’t fully adapted, insurers pull back.

We need real progress on community-wide wildfire mitigation, aligning incentives so hardening leads to lower premiums, and making sure our regulatory framework allows for accurate, forward-looking risk evaluation.

Should insurance premiums in high-risk areas more closely reflect true wildfire risk, or should taxpayers subsidize that risk to keep coverage below market rates?

Families who don’t live in high-risk areas are being asked to absorb higher costs, and that raises real concerns about equity. We saw this clearly after the Palisades fires. When the FAIR Plan was pushed to the brink, the costs didn’t stay in one community— they were spread across the system, and ultimately, all Californians are paying. That’s not a sustainable or transparent way to manage risk. At the same time, insurance does rely on spreading risk. Wildfires don’t just impact one neighborhood—they affect the stability of the entire market. When a major insurer pulls back or the FAIR Plan becomes overextended, it drives up costs and reduces coverage options statewide.

The issue is not whether risk is shared—it’s whether it’s done fairly and responsibly. We need stronger accountability so that if insurers receive rate increases or support, they are required to continue writing and renewing policies in California. We also need to reduce risk at its source by investing in wildfire mitigation and making our communities more fire safe. Finally, affordability should be targeted. Broad increases that hit everyone equally aren’t the answer—we should focus relief on the households most affected. If we get that balance right, we can protect consumers without shifting hidden costs onto families across the state.

Recent reforms to California’s insurance rate-setting framework allow forward looking, and risk-based pricing in order to stabilize the insurance market while protecting consumers. What other changes to rate-calculation rules would you prioritize to ensure insurers can price risk accurately without triggering excessive premium volatility or market withdrawal? Please name one concrete metric or safeguard you would use to judge whether these reforms are working (e.g., insurer participation, rate-filing approval timelines, or geographic availability of coverage).

We’ve made important progress by allowing more forward-looking tools, but the next step is making sure those tools are applied in a way that is transparent, predictable, and tied to real outcomes for consumers.

First, mitigation needs to show up clearly in rates. If a homeowner or community reduces risk, that should translate into meaningful, consistent premium reductions—not something opaque or uneven across carriers.

Second, we need more predictability in the rate approval process. Long or uncertain timelines create volatility and discourage participation. Clear standards and timely decisions help stabilize the market without weakening consumer protections.

Third, any additional flexibility has to come with accountability. If insurers are able to better reflect risk, they should also be writing and renewing policies in the communities they serve.

The simplest way to measure whether this is working is insurer participation—are companies writing policies again, especially in high-risk areas where they’ve pulled back? If availability is improving without sharp, destabilizing swings in premiums, then we know we’re on the right track.

What additional safeguards (beyond the Political Reform Act) will you commit to, to ensure independence from the insurance industry (e.g., recusals, donation bans, transparency dashboards)?

The Commissioner must be trusted by consumers and by the market. Refusing contributions from insurance companies, corporate PACs, real estate developers and landlord interests, fossil fuel companies, police associations, and Big Pharma helps maintain public confidence in the fairness of the office. I have pledged not to take money from the insurance industry, as they should not have influence over the election of their main regulator. I also have a longstanding policy of refusing donations from fossil fuel companies.

Californians are losing trust in institutions. I want the Department to be a national model of transparency:

• Modernize customer service with faster response times.
• Clear communication on all hardening discounts and insurer requirements.
• Public dashboards showing insurer participation, FAIR Plan trends, and claims performance.
• Create an independent consumer advocate inside the Department.
• End the revolving door by banning Commissioners from working for the insurance industry after leaving office (working on a bill on this right now!)

Identify one Department of Insurance policy, regulation, or enforcement decision from the past five years that you would have handled differently. Cite the policy, explain your reasoning, and specify what data guided your judgment.

One decision I would have handled differently was the Department’s approach to the rapid expansion of the FAIR Plan during the recent insurance market pullback.

The FAIR Plan is supposed to be a temporary backstop, not the destination for a growing share of California homeowners. But over the last several years, as more insurers reduced coverage or stopped writing in higher-risk areas, the FAIR Plan grew dramatically without enough urgency around how to reduce that exposure, improve transparency, and transition people back into the admitted market. I would have moved earlier and more aggressively to pair FAIR Plan growth with a clear strategy for depopulation, stronger consumer transparency, and firmer expectations that insurers benefiting from regulatory changes reenter the market.

We are already seeing the consequences of letting it grow too large. The recent $1 billion assessment means costs are now being spread across policyholders statewide—roughly about $50 per homeowners policy over the next two years—just to cover the shortfall. That is not a transparent or sustainable way to manage risk. If that shortfall were $10 billion instead of $1 billion, the impact on Californians would be far more severe. This is exactly why the FAIR Plan cannot be allowed to become the default.

My reasoning is straightforward: when the FAIR Plan becomes too large, it creates systemic risk and shifts costs onto consumers in ways they don’t see coming. It’s a clear signal the market is not functioning properly, and it demands earlier intervention.

Personal

Tell us a bit about yourself!

How long have you lived in California? What brought you here and what keeps you here?

I was born in Santa Monica, and currently live here with my wife and two kids. I grew up here and after moving away for school, I always knew I wanted to end up back in Santa Monica. It is such a special community, and one that my whole family is so ingrained within. So many of our neighbors have known me my whole life, and it is so meaningful to get to raise my kids within a whole network of family and friends.

What do you love most about California and/or your hometown?

I love the natural beauty, the weather, the diversity, history, and stories of California. California has always been home; it feels so familiar and I care so much about its future.

What do you dislike the most about California and/or your hometown?

It’s crowded, expensive, and dry.

Tell us about your current involvement in the community (e.g., volunteer groups, neighborhood associations, civic and professional organizations, etc.).

Currently I’m serving on the California Film Commission; the Instructional Quality Commission; the Ocean Protection Council; Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission; Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Board; State Coastal Conservancy Board; and the University of California Center in Sacramento Advisory Board. I’m also active with my son’s soccer program, and our local synagogue.

Thank you

Thank you for giving us your time and answering our questionnaire. We look forward to reading your answers and considering your candidacy!