Florida governor's race centers on who should carry hurricane risk: private insurers or a state fund?

# What's at stake Florida's gubernatorial race has centered on one clear policy question: who should be responsible for the state's hurricane wind risk — private insurers or a state-backed fund? Democrat David Jolly wants to move wind coverage out of private homeowners policies into the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (the cat fund). Republican nominee Byron Donalds calls that a government takeover and his campaign released a TV ad saying the plan would cost each Florida family $1,000 a year.

# The ad and the numbers

# Jolly's proposal in brief

Example used by the campaign: a $300,000 home with a $7,136 annual premium. Removing the wind component would reduce that bill to about $2,556 — a roughly 64% drop, according to Jolly's campaign illustration.

# The cat fund today The cat fund was created after Hurricane Andrew. At the end of 2025 it held about $9.66 billion, had 138 participating insurers, and an estimated $17 billion in claims-paying capacity against $3.6 trillion in exposure. Currently it reimburses residential insurers for a portion of hurricane losses and participation by authorized insurers is required with limited exceptions.

# What specialists say Risk and insurance specialists agree that taking wind out of private policies would lower private premiums initially, but they raise cautions:

# Precedent and fiscal risks The closest federal precedent, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), carries significant debt. The NFIP owed the Treasury $22.525 billion after a 2017 cancellation of $16 billion of debt. FEMA last borrowed in February 2025. These examples are being used to illustrate how public programs can generate large public liabilities after major events.

# The assessment question Florida law allows public insurers and entities like the cat fund to levy emergency assessments if reserves are wiped out by a catastrophe. That legal mechanism is the basis for the TV ad's claim about potential charges being passed to homeowners, renters, or auto policyholders.

# Bottom line Both campaigns are using hurricane risk and affordability to make political points. Jolly's plan proposes a clear institutional change but lacks published operational details. Analysts say the proposal would shift where the risk sits and could reduce private premiums initially, but carry fiscal and political risks that could produce future assessments or underpriced coverage.