Lessons on Recovery and Resilience in a Survey of L.A. Fire Survivors

Nine months after the Eaton and Palisades fires, the Department of Angels released a large, community-level survey in October offering a detailed look at how homeowners perceive their recovery experience.

As we approach the one-year anniversary of the fires, several findings are noteworthy for insurance leaders and policy makers tasked with disaster response—both in Los Angeles and across the country. 

The findings not only provide a window into the obstacles that fire survivors face long after the smoke has cleared and before homes are fully rebuilt, but they also point to opportunities and innovations that could make life easier for homeowners after the next disaster.

Three challenges stand out: 

1. Homeowners Have Exhausted Their Displacement Coverage

Displacement coverage pays for the additional costs of relocation when the home isn’t habitable. The displacement coverage timeline works when recovery schedules are predictable. After the L.A. fires, they haven't been. 

Inspection and permitting have moved slowly, and labor and material shortages have created month-long delays. According to the Department of Angels survey, 12% of Altadena residents have exhausted their displacement coverage, while 20% of Pacific Palisades residents have run out. Within the next year, 23% of Altadena survivors and 29% of Pacific Palisades survivors will exhaust their coverage.

The survey identified this as a primary pain point. Compounding the issue, federal support has been limited—an analysis by LAist found FEMA covered a smaller portion of damage costs in L.A. than in other recent disasters, with survivors reporting slow processes and claims that were denied for procedural reasons.

2. Survivors With Standing Homes Are Having a Hard Time

Survivors with standing homes are having a harder time than would be expected. According to the Department of Angels survey, survivors whose homes were damaged, but not destroyed, are four times more likely to experience claim denials than those who lost everything, and six times more likely to have all claims rejected.

Over 90% of survivors whose homes sustained structural, smoke, and ash damage have less than a year of displacement coverage remaining. For 20% of standing home survivors, coverage has already ended.

What accounts for the gap between displacement coverage for damaged versus destroyed homes? The timeline for remediation and repair on standing homes is difficult to predict, and insurers generally pay 1-2 months of displacement coverage at a time, meaning that survivors with standing homes struggle to secure long-term alternative housing. These families cycle through expensive short-term rentals and month-to-month Airbnbs, running through their coverage allocations faster than neighbors with more straightforward total losses.

3. Contamination Testing is Hard to Access, and Often Isn’t Covered

Structural fire damage is visible: blistered paint, charred siding, broken windows. But invisible damage can be dangerous, too; the lead, asbestos, benzene, and other toxins left behind by fires can make homes uninhabitable even when they appear structurally sound. This is particularly true when a fire transitions from a wild fire to an urban one. Soil in the burn zone in Los Angeles reportedly contains high levels of heavy metals, which can leach into the water supply.

The Department of Angels found that 55% of homes that have undergone contamination testing registered contaminant levels above acceptable thresholds determined by state and federal agencies. Insurance covered contamination testing for 29% of residents whose homes were left standing, while 27% said they had to pay out of pocket. The remaining households either couldn't access testing or are living with unknown contamination levels.

Fire-based contamination is more complex to tackle than visible damage—it's harder for homeowners to identify, and it requires lab analysis that takes longer than visual inspection. The challenge is determining who pays for testing, remediation, and the extended displacement that follows when homes test positive.

Strategies for Supporting Current Survivors

Three interventions could provide immediate relief to L.A. fire survivors who are still displaced:

Enforce Displacement Coverage Provisions. California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara has issued guidance urging insurers to thoroughly assess habitability, honor the clauses stipulated in their contracts, and maintain additional living expense coverage for survivors. “Survivors should not be forced to return to unsafe conditions, whether due to toxic ash, contaminated water, or the lack of essential utilities,” he said. The California Department of Insurance offers ten tips for wildfire claimants. The guidance is for California homeowners, but the recommendations are applicable to anyone recovering from a wildfire disaster.

Expand Contamination Testing. Making testing standard practice for all fire-damaged homes would clarify which properties require remediation and help speed recovery timelines. The Department of Angels has partnered with USC’s CLEAN program to provide free lead soil testing; scaling similar programs could address the current gap.

Increase Access to Case Managers. For survivors navigating their new reality, staying on top of everything presents its own challenge. The Department of Angels found that over half of survivors want case managers (sometimes provided by FEMA, local nonprofits, and other local government agencies), but only 6% have one. The complexity of insurance claims, remediation decisions, and rebuilding timelines exceeds what most people can manage alone, particularly while dealing with displacement and trauma.

Strategies for Innovation Before the Next Disaster 

Big questions remain, such as: how can we ensure the next group of survivors—whether in Florida after a hurricane or California after a fire—has a smoother path to returning home and is less likely to have to leave home in the first place? For insurers facing a rapidly shifting risk environment, this is also an opportunity to modernize insurance products and reduce long-term losses.

Hardening a home against wildfire pays for itself many times over in avoiding future losses, but it requires upfront capital that most survivors don't have. Forward-thinking insurers and nonprofits like Insurance for Good are experimenting with new products that make resilience financially viable. Homeowners are interested: More than 80% of the Department of Angels’ survey respondents support investment in fire-safety upgrades. 

Several Emerging Models Show Promise 

Resilience endorsements are add-ons to standard insurance policies that pay out extra rebuilding funds if homeowners commit to upgrades like wind- and rain-resistant roofing, ember-resistant vents, or defensible landscaping. The policy essentially finances resilience through the claim itself.

Resilience credits work differently: Insurers provide upfront funding for protective measures before a fire occurs, paired with specific recommendations tailored to the property's vulnerabilities. Think of it as preventive medicine for homes.

Resilience discounts reward homeowners who've already invested. California's FAIR Plan, for example, now offers up to 25% premium reductions for properties meeting wildfire safety standards, creating a direct financial incentive for hardening.

Community-based insurance policies can reduce premiums because fire safety compounds. A single home with defensible space provides modest protection; an entire block following the same standards creates exponentially greater safety. Community insurance policies align incentives, making collective action both possible and affordable.

The Department of Angels survey documents what many in insurance, government, and industry already know: current disaster response systems weren't designed for the scale and complexity of modern climate-driven catastrophes. 

By learning from the gaps revealed in Los Angeles, the insurance industry and policymakers across the country have an opportunity to build new structures that reduce suffering and financial loss when the next wildfire approaches.

Have thoughts to share on this piece, or want to add your voice to the conversation? Reach out!