Three-quarters of the victims of the October wildfires in California who responded to a recent survey said their homeowners insurance wasn’t sufficient to cover increased rebuilding costs.

Insurer trade organizations disputed the finding of the survey, sponsored by San Francisco-based consumer group United Policyholders and the subject of numerous media reports, most notably by the Los Angeles Times.

United Policyholders interviewed 274 people whose homes were damaged or destroyed by the fires and found that 46% of respondents had settled their claims, only a third of which said they received enough money to rebuild.

The Times, which analyzed the underinsurance issue in some depth, cited people and groups with and without insurance industry ties who blamed agents for the problem.

“Consumer advocates” the newspaper didn’t name asserted producers sell “cut-rate policies to earn quick commissions.”

The Times did identify Brian Sullivan, publisher of the respected national trade newsletter Property Insurance Report, who expressed a similar view.

In addition to seeking opinions on the cause(s) of underinsurance, the Times solicited views on how much responsibility homeowners vis-à-vis insurers have to keep coverage up-to-date.

Carrier trade group representatives asserted homeowners are obligated to inform insurers about additions, any remodeling and all upgrades as well as to check coverage at renewals.

Amy Bach, executive director of United Policyholders, countered that homeowners for the most part lack knowledge of rebuilding costs and can’t accurately assess their coverage needs.

California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner said the insurer and insured share the duties.

“The homeowner is responsible for keeping the insurance company up to date about additions and purchasing of new assets,” the commissioner told the Times. “If the homeowner does his job, then the responsibility completely shifts to the insurance company. [Carriers] are experts in construction costs. Their job is to calculate how much you need to pay for a loss.”

In a recent decision in a case stemming from the 2003 Southern California wildfires, the California 4th District Court of Appeal ruled against a San Bernardino woman whose home was destroyed and sought to hold her insurer responsible for her inadequate coverage.

Poizner, who disagrees with the finding, has asked the court to “depublish” its April 29 ruling so that it cannot be cited as a precedent.

In addition, the state Department of Insurance has commenced market-conduct examinations of “many” large homeowners insurers with significant market share in Southern California.

“ . . . we’re looking for violations of claims-processing rules,” the commissioner told the Times, saying he’s concerned about the number of complaints from fire victims.