Build the Future Together

Pacific Palisades Volunteers Working for Change

Noteworthy

CAL Reinsure

Noteworthy

We propose one small change in home insurance regulation in the State of California to create a massive change in home insurance that will break the home insurance log jam currently plaguing the State.

The plan was conceived by Build the Future Founder Merritt Farren.

The plan and its key component are called CAL Reinsure.

Introduction 

CAL Reinsure is a new reinsurance program that shifts 100% of the risk of total loss due to community fire from insurers writing homeowner policies in California to a new state organized reinsurance entity, CAL Reinsure.  

It speeds and simplifies payouts to insureds who lose their homes due to community fire by shifting payout to a simple parametric insurance approach in which loss of a home due to community fire gives rise to an immediate right to payout in the amount of coverage acquired  — no delay and no arduous need to establish the value of what was lost or the cost to replace it.  If the consumer has $1.5 million in community fire loss coverage and loses a home due to community fire, the consumer has an immediate right to receive $1.5 million.

CAL Reinsure reduces costs to consumers by putting the community fire risk of all Californians buying homeowners and renters insurance into one pool and eliminating all costs associated with post destruction loss settlement.

It allows insurance companies to write insurance policies statewide without fear of insolvency risk in the event of community fire.

CAL Reinsure helps ensure that all California homeowners can obtain the home insurance they need from their choice of insurance providers, obviating the need for California Fair Plan.

Community fire is defined as a fire destroying at least three homes (“Community Fire”).  Total loss is defined to include both total loss and a constructive total loss, where constructive total loss is liberally defined to include any home damaged in a Community Fire requiring rebuild or remediation estimated to cost 50% or more of  the Community Fire risk coverage carried on the home damaged (“Total Loss”).

Why the Plan is Necessary

Community Fire risk is a very specific risk that touches only a very small percentage of homeowners and renters in the State of California each year, yet potential losses due to Community Fire are wreaking havoc on the entire home insurance eco system in California.  By removing this one specific risk from risks that insurance companies take on in writing home insurance and renter insurance policies in the State of California, the plan allows the market for home insurance and renter insurance to resettle and function as it needs to function.

Why the Plan’s High Level of Government Participation is Appropriate

Good home insurance coverage doesn’t just protect homeowners, it protects communities.  In doing that, it protects local economies that, together, drive the prosperity of the entire State.

Yet today, homeowners and the communities they live in are not adequately protected.  One has only to look at the dismal post fire rebuild statistics following recent California community fires to see just how poorly the current home insurance regime in the State of California is protecting homeowners and communities.  The slow pace of rebuild and recovery is devastating for families already traumatized by their loss – and for the entire communities so essential to the physical, financial and mental wellbeing of all Californians. 

What the Plan is 

Under the Plan, all insurers writing homeowner and renter insurance in California are required to include a Community Fire Component in the policies they write.  The Community Fire Component is to consist of three sub-components:

  • a Rebuild Cost Component;
  • an Alternate Lodging Component; and 
  • a Property Loss Component.  

The Community Fire Component covers loss only in the event of the Total Loss of a home due to Community Fire.

Partial damage in a Community Fire is covered under general fire risk coverage in polices.

The coverage amount for the Rebuild Cost Component must be set at an amount no lower than a minimum amount set by the California Department of Insurance as provided in a Zip Code specific Insurance Rebuild Cost Estimate to be published by the California Department of Insurance each year.  The Alternate Lodging Component is to be set automatically at 15% of the Rebuild Cost Component coverage amount and the Property Loss Component is set automatically at 35% of the Rebuild Cost Component coverage amount.

The cost that is to be charged by the insurer to the insured for the Community Fire Component is set annually by CAL Reinsure.  It is set to be as low as practicable, given actuarial risks and other relevant financial considerations, including income earned on insurance fees paid into CAL Reinsure.  Actuarial risk will take into consideration the degree to which the home being insured has been hardened for fire protection and the degree to which the community in which the home is located has meet minimum fire safety and fire prevention standards established by the California Department of Insurance and CAL Reinsure (“Community Fire Protection Preparedness Rating”).  The Community Fire Protection Preparedness Rating standards will be established both to prevent a repeat of the sort of abject failure to provide even the most basic fire protection that led to the destruction of Pacific Palisades but also to encourage communities to step up to the higher levels of thoughtful fire protection required by the increased fire risks be driven by climate change.  The data and methodology used by CAL Reinsure in setting rates for the Community Fire Component and determining Community Fire Protection Preparedness Ratings are to be made publicly available.

How it Works

Insurance carriers write homeowner policies as they normally do today, covering the broad set of risks homeowner and renter insurance policies generally cover.

Within the cost of coverage charged by the insurer is the fee for the Community Fire Component specified by CAL Reinsure.

100% of the risk of total loss and constructive total loss under the Community Fire Component is reinsured by CAL Reinsure – relieving the insurance carrier of 100% of the risk of loss under the Community Fire Component.

90% of fee paid to the insurance company by the insured for the Community Fire Component is passed on to CAL Reinsure by the insurance company to build the CAL Reinsure reserves necessary given its exposure.  The insurance company retains 10% of the fee as a fee for writing and assisting with the administration of the coverage.

If necessary to insure the adequate and timely establishment of appropriate CAL Reinsure reserves, consideration will be given to adding a small percentage tax on all insurance policies sold in the state of California (other than medical insurance).

In the event an insured’s home is completely destroyed or constructively completely destroyed by a Community Fire, the insured is entitled to a 100% payout to policy limits directly from CAL Reinsure for each of the three Property Loss Components within 30 days of loss (provided that the 30 day period can be scheduled out by CAL Reinsure over a 6 month period if required due to CAL Reinsure liquidity concerns).  In this sense, the Community Fire Component functions under a parametric insurance model in which a trigger (in this case total loss of a home due to Community Fire) give rise to an immediate right to payout in a pre-set amount (in this case the dollar amount of coverage the insured signed up for).

The obligations of CAL Reinsure to insureds are underwritten by the State of California.  In the event CAL Reinsure lacks sufficient funds to pay out on claims, the State of California is obligated to make interest bearing liquidity loans to CAL Reinsure.  The loans are to be in amounts required to ensure CAL Reinsure has the liquidity it needs to meet its obligations to insureds who have lost their homes.

The plan moves risk of loss due to community fire away from insurers, allowing insurers to write insurance coverage throughout the state, including in wildfire risk zones.

The plan consolidates risk statewide, allowing the risk and cost of coverage to be shared by all California homeowners. 

Plan Refinement

The foregoing plan, while detailed, should be understood to be in need of drill down and refinement in each of its components.

Merritt’s Path to Intervening in the State Farm Insurance Rate Approval Proceedings.

Noteworthy, State Farm

Build the Future Together’s founder Merritt David Farren is an active participant in the ongoing State Farm Insurance Rate Proceedings – Representing the Interests of all California Consumers in the Proceedings.

Under California law, insurance companies that want approval from the California Department of Insurance for a major rate hike, need to show their need for the rate hike in a judicial proceedings.

State Farm has asked for a major rate hike and is currently attempting to demonstrate in need in a judicial proceeding before Administrative Judge Karl Frederic Seligman.

California law also allows citizens to seek to participate to represent consumer interests in the judicial proceedings.

Build the Future Together’s founder, Merritt David Farren, has been admitted as one of the four parties in the proceedings as a representative of consumer interests in the proceedings.

Merritt Farren leaves the Ronald Reagan State Building in downtown Los Angeles with his son after a State Farm rate-hike hearing. Photo: JAMIE PAIGE

Merritt Farren leaves the Ronald Reagan State Building in downtown Los Angeles with his son after a State Farm rate-hike hearing.
Photo: JAMIE PAIGE

See Press Coverage

From Merritt:

In the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton fires a few things were evident to me from talking to friends and neighbors and following a multitude of WhatsApp group chats:

  • People were suffering, as much from the day to day post fire challenges, big and small, as they were from their loss.
  • Insurance was the biggest source of ongoing trauma. Some, who lost their homes and who had insurance from premium providers like Pure and Chub, were being supported and treated well.  Others were being treated miserably.
  • Those insured by State Farm and California Fair Plan were suffering most.
  • They were being put through the ringer to detail and prove up personal effects they lost.
  • They were forced to meet with incompetent adjusters and rebuild cost estimators sent in from out of state. Estimators who were unfamiliar with local building codes, local construction costs and local standards of taste and quality.
  • They were given rebuild cost estimates that got basic facts wrong – like the number of square feet and the number of bathrooms in a house destroyed.
  • Their adjusters changed multiple times, and each wanted yet another full explanation of the home and possessions lost – requiring a never ending reliving of something painful to think about even once.
  • They were given ridiculously low rebuild cost estimates, causing stress and sleepless nights. I was told by a friend insured by Pure that Pure’s estimators were working up rebuild estimates for the Palisades in the range of $800 to $1,200 a square foot.  State Farm was providing its customers with estimates as low as $275 a square foot – adequate for a garage perhaps, but not a home.
  • And the distress of individuals and families became the community’s distress. Stress caused by miserable treatment by insurance companies tore families apart.  Those with insurance from companies that treated them well wondered about rebuilding if their friends and neighbors, with insurance from State Farm weren’t able to do so.
  • of Palisades fire victims has caused a massive delay in the rebuilding of the community, meaning that all in the community suffer.

Then State Farm, the insurance company that appeared to be treating its customers most poorly, asked the California Department of Insurance to approve a massive emergency state-wide rate hike. 

Wait, what?

I can assure you that that didn’t sit well with State Farm insureds who had lost their homes in the Palisades and Eaton fires.

“How can they even ask to raise rates when they’re treating us so badly” was the first refrain on WhatsApp chats. 

“And how can the Insurance Commissioner, Ricardo Lara, even think of considering State Farm’s rate increase request without requiring State Farm to behave well.” was the second refrain.

Upset State Farm insureds who lost their homes started calling the insurance commissioner’s office to urge the Department of Insurance to tie any rate increase to better treatment of those who had just lost their homes and all their possessions.  What did they all here in response? “Rate increases have nothing to do with complaints.”

Really?  That makes no sense, right?

Surely what customers get when they buy insurance needs to be tied directly the rate approved for the insurance, no?

How can it be otherwise?

After all, you can’t determine a fair or appropriate price for any “product” without knowing what the product is.  The idea is absurd.

I called the Department of Insurance myself.  A nice man who seemed sympathetic told me simply:  No, sorry.  That’s not “how it works”.  “The Department of Insurance will be reviewing State Farm’s rate increase request without taking into consideration the treatment you and others are receiving.”

So I did some research, looking at the underlying law that had created the rate approval process.    My conclusion, the underlying law requiring insurance companies operating in California to get approval before raising rates should be understood to require that claims handling practices be detailed as part of their rate approval requests.  In other words, the Department of Insurance has been doing it wrong.

Yes, the approach the Department was taking in reviewing State Farm’s rate increase is the approach it has been using to consider other rate approval requests, but it was not the approach it should be taking.

The insurance community, no doubt, loves the fact that it can get approvals for rate increases without having to make any commitment whatsoever on the way they will treat consumers who buy the policies they get rate approvals for – but that’s an awful set-up for consumers.

Why has the California Department of Insurance approving rate increases in such a consumer unfriendly way? Hard to say.  Maybe they just want to make things easy for themselves?  Or maybe its all about the money the insurance industry pumps into the coffers of the politicians who control the state government?

There have been numerous articles detailing the seemingly cozy relationship between insurance industry executives and Ricardo Lara, California’s Insurance Commissioner, a Democrat elected to the position.  Lara was put under investigation for unethical practices in the State of California due, among other things, to multiple trips to international conferences he certainly didn’t need to attend to which he flew first class.  First class?  With the citizens of California footing the bill?  I and other executives at Amazon, a prosperous company, never flew first class.  First class was considered a wasteful extravagance.  Why would any state official ever be flying first class anywhere?

Time to Take Action

My research into the insurance rate approval process in California also revealed something I might use to help change the process.   Proposition 103, the California voter approved initiative mandating approval of insurance company rate increases included a means by which private citizens can seek to intervene in the process to advocate for the interests of consumers.  What’s more, intervention requests are made public by the Department of Insurance, meaning that if I were to request to intervene and include in my request a statement of how I’d like to see the process improved, my recommendation on how the process could be improved would become part of the public record, which in and of itself might help bring about positive change.

I filed my request to intervene in the State Farm rate approval proceedings on May 22, 2025.  In my request, which you can see a copy of on the Department of Insurance website here, I did two things.  First, I detailed a number of the egregious wrongs I saw State Farm committing in handling claims of those who lost their homes in the Palisades and Eaton fires.  That ensured that the stories of those suffering would be part of the public record.  Second, I asked that I be allowed to intervene in order to represent the interests of consumers and to make the argument that the rate approval process should include a definition of the key ways in which insurers handle claims.

In my filing, I analogized to what a rate approval process might look like for automobiles, if the State of California had a Commissioner of Automobiles who needed to approve the price at which cars were being sold.  I said that if that commissioner made her or his decision without taking into account whether the car the price was being approved for was a Kia or a Tesla, everyone would say that was absurd.  But that’s exactly what the Commissioner of Insurance is doing in rate approval proceedings.

I also emphasized that I had deep experience and expertise helping two of the world’s most customer centric companies balance the need for profitability with best in class customer service and care – and avowed a belief that my experience could be generally helpful to the interests of consumers in the rate approval proceedings.

My request to intervene was picked up by the judge hearing the State Farm rate increase request.  Not all rate increase requests go to a judge, but those that request major rate hikes do, and the judge establishes a streamlined litigation process for the rate proceeding to be considered.  The judge, Frederic Seligman, scheduled a hearing to allow me to present and argue my request to intervene and to let State Farm, the Department of Insurance and Consumer Watchdog, a consumer advocate already acting as an intervenor, make their arguments as to whether I should be allowed to intervene.

State Farm filed papers ahead of the hearing opposing my intervention, basically arguing “that’s not the way rate proceedings are handled.”  Not surprising.  The Department of Insurance filed papers opposing my intervention making the same argument.  Not surprising, I suppose, in that I was asking them to take an approach they have never taken, but disappointing, nonetheless.  How could a Department created to serve the interests of the citizens of the state, fight someone seeking to propose consumer friendly reform?

The day before the hearing on my petition to intervene, Ricard Lara, California’s Insurance Commissioner, elected to the post by the voters of the State, announced that he would open a market conduct inquiry to look into “complaints” he’d received regarding State Farm’s conduct.  State Farm hurried out an electronically filed letter to the judge informing the judge of Lara’s announcement as a way of saying “Look your honor, the matters Farren is raising are already being dealt with over there.  No need to include them here.”  I suspect that the timing of Lara’s announcement of his market conduct review, if not the market conduct review itself, was driven by my hearing date.

The Hearing

The hearing, which took place by Zoom, included lively discussion about what I was looking to achieve.  I started my comments by reminding the group that California is one of the world’s great centers of innovation, and calling on the group to lean into that spirit of innovation to innovate as required to get us out of the insurance crisis we are currently in.

I emphasized that my goal was not that State Farm’s practices be judged in the proceedings, but simply that they be noted.  Having them noted would achieve two things.  First it would help ensure that the cost data being used by State Farm to show that it needed a rate hike was accurate.  State Farm’s costs are a direct function of its claims handling practices.  If State Farm’s practices have changed over time, then historical cost data won’t be an accurate predictor of future costs.   Second, once information on claims handling practices became part of the pubic record, it would be positioned to help consumers shopping for insurance make more informed decisions.

The Judge’s Decision

The judge’s decision, which he issued in a written holding a couple of weeks after the hearing, let me in.  In his decision, the judge did an excellent, scholarly job laying out the legal basis supporting my request to intervene, and specifically refuted State Farm’s and the Insurance Department’s argument that what I stated should be included in the proceedings was not relevant to the proceedings.  If the decision of the Department of Insurance and to oppose my intervention could cause me to question my faith in our governmental institutions, the judge’s well-reasoned, well written and scholarly decision restored my faith.

Subsequent Developments

By the time Judge Seligman put out his decision letting me intervene, the date for discovery in the proceedings had already passed.  Discovery allows a party in a legal proceeding to request documents from other parties to establish facts relevant to the proceedings.

Given that, I needed to file a motion requesting that the date for discovery be extended so that I could request documents from State Farm.  Not giving up, the Department of Insurance objected to my request.  It also filed an alternate proposal, that I be allowed to look into State Farm’s practices in a separate bifurcated proceeding that would follow the rate setting proceeding.  One interpretation of the Department’s alterative proposal:  that it was a cynical way of attempting to boot me out of the proceedings that would eventually be followed by another effort by the Department to ensure the alternative proceeding they themselves proposed would never happen.

Fair?  Not fair?  Hard to know.

My motion, and Department’s alternative bifurcation proposal were then the subject of an in person hearing before the Judge in Los Angeles.  At the hearing were members of the press, my son Sebastain and a number of State Farm customers who lost their homes in the recent fires.

In my opening comments in the hearing, I thanked the members of the press, my son, and those who lost their homes for being there.

In what for me was the most extraordinary moment in the hearing, the lawyer representing State Farm chose to start comments by admonishing me for grandstanding in thanking those who lost their homes for being there. 

Wow. Who at State Farm writing its narrative?  Who thinks it’s a good idea to criticize someone who has just acknowledged your customers and their extraordinary, painful loss?  Wow. 

Not surprisingly, all in, the Judge granted my motion to extend the discovery date and put aside the Department of Insurance’s alterative proposal. 

The Events Since Being Granted a Discovery Date Extension

After the Judge extended the discovery date so that I could serve State Farm a discovery request, I sent my discovery request to State Farm and suggested to State Farm’s counsel that we discuss it. State Farm’s response: effectively, talk to the hand.

I was then forced to file a motion to compel State Farm to respond to my discovery request. 

To that, State Farm objected, of course.  Not giving up its own fight against my effort, the Department of Insurance also filed an objection.  I suppose they get points for consistency.

Next up:  more discovery back and forth and a trial, now scheduled to take place in January.

I’m in this for the long haul and have no plan to give up my fight for the interests of consumers in the proceedings.

Stay tuned.

Meet Our Volunteers

Noteworthy

Meet Alison

Alison MacCracken is a visionary real estate strategist and community builder with over two decades of global experience in residential and commercial markets across the U.S., China, India, and Mexico. Continue Reading

Continue Reading Meet Alison

Meet Frank

Frank Renfro is a seasoned software developer and entrepreneur with a passion for creating solutions that strengthen communities. He has built hyper-local, consumer-focused apps like Naybur and SoNeighborly, designed to connect neighbors and simplify local engagement. A longtime resident of Pacific Palisades, Frank lived in the neighborhood with his family, coaches AYSO soccer, and serves…

Continue Reading Meet Frank

Meet Merritt

Merritt David Farren has spent his professional life where business and law come together, in media and technology. More recently, motivated by the suffering he saw in the Pacific Palisades community post fire, he’s shifted his time and energy to community service. Merritt is currently serving as a party in the State Farm rate increase…

Continue Reading Meet Merritt

Our Mission

Noteworthy


Our Mission is to use the calamity that destroyed our community to make California safer and better for all Californians.

We’re starting by tackling two key problems plaguing our state:

– the lack of accontability of our cities, counties and state to keep us safe from fire and other risks; and

– the insurance crisis gripping the State of California.

The volunteers who started Build the Future Together all lost their homes in the Pacific Palisades fire of January 2025.

Yes, the fire was driven by a uniquely powerful windstorm. But the fire never would have created the damage it did had our city, county and state done what they should have done to protect our community and had they reacted with the leadership required when it broke out.

Post fire, the nightmare has continued with struggles to get the insurance coverage we thought we had. Poor treatment by insurance companies is keeping families from getting back on their feet and preventing our community from rebuilding.

We could just complain and wring our hands. But that’s not the California way — and we’re Californians.

What do Californian’s do when challenges arrive? They imagine, invent and build what’s needed – for themselves, and for the entire community.

We’re on a mission to ensure that the calamity we suffered drives positive change for all.

Please join us.

Help us imagine, invent and build the future we want together.

Let’s bring new wings to the California dream and let it soar.

Who We Are

Noteworthy

Hello and welcome. We’re glad you found Build the Future Together.

We’re a group of volunteers from Pacific Palisades California.

We lost our homes and community in an urban fire that should never have been allowed to happen.

We hope you’ll join our effort to drive change that will help save others from the loss and trauma our entire community has endured.

Merritt David Farren

I’m Merritt Farren, the founder of Build the Future Together™.

I founded Build the Future Together to help California overcome key problems plaguing our state – starting with the failure of our government at all levels – city, county and state – to keep us all safe from fire and with the insurance crisis gripping our state which is largely driven by lack of safety from fire.

There’s a lot of talk about fire risk in wildfire prone areas in or close to the wilds, but my home was not close to the wilds.  It was well over a mile from natural space and had thousands of homes, sunset boulevard and all of downtown Pacific Palisades between it and natural space. 

My insurance company didn’t even condsider it to be in a high fire risk zone.  It was a suburban home in a suburban home community like those throughout Los Angeles and throughout the state.

I’ve lived in California nearly all my life.  Despite its many problems, I still believe in our state and what it should be and can be.   I want to see it be the beautiful, clean, thriving, well-run placed it should be.  A place that combines the best in natural beauty and human innovation.  The best place in the world for dreaming and realizing your dreams.

The January 2025 Pacific Palisades fire killed 12 people and destroyed 6,837 structures — almost all of them family homes.  It was driven by massive winds stemming from an unusual whether event, but it never would have started and never would have done such extensive damage if not for lack of vision and massive incompetence on the part of City of Los Angeles, county of Los Angeles and California State officials.

Brush areas adjacent to the Palisades that could have and should have been cleared to protect the city were not.  The main reservoir built years ago to provide water in the case of fire sat neglected and empty for over a year ahead of the fire. 

Multiple water pumps that should have been tested to ensure they would work during a fire failed.  A fire in the hills that posed an obvious threat of reignition was unwatched, despite meteorologist warnings that a massive wind and fire risk was approaching. 

When fire hydrants ran dry or had no water pressure – just hours after the fire broke out – fire personnel stood back and let the fires rage.  The community, abandoned, was left to burn.  Pool water that could have been used to put out fires wasn’t.  Back-up fire fighting teams that should have been summoned immediately to come in from throughout the state weren’t called in. 

Most homes burned down without a single fire man or woman making any attempt at all to save them.  Fire trucks and other equipment were out of service due to overdue repair work as money that should have been used to protect the community from fire was spent on homelessness services instead.  Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass cut the budget for the fire department ahead of the fires.  The city of Los Angeles spent over a billion funding homelessness services organizations in 2024, and well less than a billion on fire prevention.

My home and my entire community was destroyed due to unfathomable neglect and incompetence.

For most who lost their homes in the fires, the aftermath has been just as devastating as the initial loss.  So many challenges.  Stress.  Families split apart.  A major lack of planning and coordination on cleanup and rebuilding.  The realization hit three to four weeks after the fires:  The same people who landed the community in disaster are the ones in place to clean it up. 

Uh oh.

For most, the worst of the post fire nightmare has been dealing with insurance.  The struggles and frustrations are epic and don’t end.  And the fact that they mirror those suffered by those who lost their homes in other recent fires has made the struggle even more disheartening.  It would be one thing if the insurance suffering caused by insurance companies in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton fires was new.  But it is not.  The fact that it’s not, and that those in our government positioned to fix the problems plaguing consumers haven’t fixed them, is especially frustrating.

And our top leaders?  Our state and city leaders failed to play the key role they should have played to ensure the community was protected before the fires and, when the fire erupted, failed to play any meaningful role to ensure it was put out quickly and citizens were protected.  

Neither Mayor Bass nor Governor Newsom have properly acknowledged their responsibility. 

Nor have they done what they should have done to determine what truly allowed the destruction to happen and what – more importantly still – needs to be done to ensure it is not repeated.  They point to a fire a week ahead of the Palisades fire set by an arsonist as the cause, but that fire is no explanation for the killing and destruction the community suffered.  Documents and records of what happened asked for by the press have been hidden from public view.  Those who lost and suffered have yet to see the investigation they deserve.

What can Build the Future Together do to help?  We’ve started with involvement in the State Farm rate approval proceedings and the accountability and insurance reform efforts described on this site.  Modest steps, but important ones.

With your help and support, we’ll expand our activities over time.

I hope you’ll join me in supporting our efforts and helping make California the place for dreams and dreamers it can and should be.

Thanks – and queue the Mamas and Papas song, please.

Merritt

Read About Merritt’s Representation of the Interests of Consumers in the Ongoing State Farm Rate Hike Proceedings

Merritt’s Path to Intervening in the State Farm Insurance Rate Approval Proceedings.

Build the Future Together’s founder Merritt David Farren is an active participant in the ongoing State Farm Insurance Rate Proceedings – Representing the Interests of all California Consumers in the Proceedings. Under California law, insurance companies that want approval from the California Department of Insurance for a major rate hike, need to show their need…

Continue Reading Merritt’s Path to Intervening in the State Farm Insurance Rate Approval Proceedings.

Get to Know Merritt and Our Other Volunteers.

Meet Alison

Alison MacCracken is a visionary real estate strategist and community builder with over two decades of global experience in residential and commercial markets across the U.S., China, India, and Mexico. Continue Reading

Continue Reading Meet Alison

Meet Frank

Frank Renfro is a seasoned software developer and entrepreneur with a passion for creating solutions that strengthen communities. He has built hyper-local, consumer-focused apps like Naybur and SoNeighborly, designed to connect neighbors and simplify local engagement. A longtime resident of Pacific Palisades, Frank lived in the neighborhood with his family, coaches AYSO soccer, and serves on the Palisades Rebuild Council, where he helps guide recovery efforts after…

Continue Reading Meet Frank

Meet Merritt

Merritt David Farren has spent his professional life where business and law come together, in media and technology. More recently, motivated by the suffering he saw in the Pacific Palisades community post fire, he’s shifted his time and energy to community service. Merritt is currently serving as a party in the State Farm rate increase proceedings before the California Department of Insurance, representing the interests of consumers.…

Continue Reading Meet Merritt