Posted on 12/08/2006 6:17:12 AM PST by Hydroshock
NEW YORK - Allstate Corp., the largest publicly traded U.S. home and auto insurer, said Thursday it will stop writing new homeowner policies in New Jersey on Feb. 5, citing concern a hurricane might strike the state.
The state's second-largest home insurer after State Farm said the change will not affect 230,000 homeowners who already have policies with the company.
Allstate will no longer write new policies for owners of homes, condominiums, mobile homes and landlords. It said it will also not renew policies for about 300 commercial customers in eight coastal counties.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I don't know about that. I had some very minor water damage and my company couldn't have been more accomodating. Granted, it wasn't a major problem or some great local disaster, but they treated me like a customer.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
btt
Many Jersey people have the mob mentality, soak the system. >>
they do? how do you know this? any stats?
So you're on the record in favor of increased government regulation. Do you only favor limited government when it happens to personally benefit you?
Reading this thread is scary. One would expect that most of the comments were made on some liberal forum. "Big Insurance sucks! We need more government regulation! Why should I be responsible for my own personal property?"
"Do you only favor limited government when it happens to personally benefit you?"
No. Only when it controls predatory swine.
Rough translation: Only when it compels a business through force to take actions contrary to its best interests.
Sorry, but that's a very liberal viewpoint.
Sorry, but I'm a very un-liberal kind of guy. Check my posting history.
If you think that government NEVER should get involved in regulating businesses, you probably support monopolies and robber barons. The government regulates businesses all the time. Insurance companies should not be exempt simply because they are insurance companies.
Your posting history on this thread indicates otherwise. At least on this issue you're speaking like a true lib.
If you think that government NEVER should get involved in regulating businesses, you probably support monopolies and robber barons. The government regulates businesses all the time. Insurance companies should not be exempt simply because they are insurance companies.
Please. No right thinking person could believe what you're proposing is legitimate regulation. Similar to an example given above, suppose the federal government told Fidelity that it must invest its mutual fund dollars equally in all stocks, or discontinue its entire business. Would that be appropriate?
There is a big difference between insuring against a risk and socializing risk. The political controversies surrounding insurance arise largely from people who think insurers should be socializing risk -- i.e., subsidizing high risk behaviors and locations.
The logic of insurance is that people who share a risk band together to pool resources against a predictable loss. People who live in coastal areas ought to pay a premium against hurricanes, just as people who live in California ought to pay for earthquakes. All that seems to be happening now is that insurers are splitting those risks out of the national risk pool. Fine with me.
I don't follow insurance closely but I get the impression that one of the big unnecessary problems is that state legislatures and courts are shredding coverage limitations on an ad hoc, after the fact basis. That destroys the predictablity on which rate setting depends. If I were an insurer, I'd be tempted to withdraw from the affected markets as well. Mandated coverages are a different matter. They are usually bad policy but one can factor them into the rates notwithstanding.
New Jersey has serious problems with its insurance industry. It has had them for some time.
These problems are peculiar to trhe social structure of New Jersey which has more attorneys per capita than any other state in the Union.
Limiting "pain and suffering" suits would improve things.
But as I pointed out, the biggest customers of Trenton's legislative harlots are the insurance companies, the Trial COurt Attorneys, the New Jersey Education Association, the COnstruction Unions and last but certainly not least, the police unions.
Any efforts by the state to make things more bearable for its citizens by regulating abusive insurance practises is welcome there. After all, the insurnace lobbies have benefitted by government legislation which benefits them like mandatory automobile insurnace, mandatory use of seat belts, humiliating "random road checks" of law abiding citizens to make sure they are wearing seat belts and have not been drinling.
So its rather hypocritical of them to complain when the government seeks to control them too.
I have friends in Miami who are talking about buying off their home loans so they won't have to pay the skyrocketing insurance rates.
What I've done is to insure for far less than the replacement value of the home, and get the highest deductible possible. In my view, the house is not likely to be totaled anyway, althought that does happen.
Meanwhile, I absolutely agree that it is not government's place to regulate prices, or to tell people what they can sell to whom and where. All that smacks of central planning and socialism.
Regulation does have a place in government, but IMO mainly in the enforcement of contracts and honest business practices.
So although you admit that to this point government regulation of the insurance industry has failed miserably, you propose...more regulation!
After all, the government gets it right so much more often than the free market. LOL.
Yep. Similar to healthcare, the model will need to change in order to protect people from catastrophic losses while allowing them to self insure up to a level they can afford. The system already allows this (provided you have equity in your home), and smart people in high risk areas will begin to take advantage of it.
I've long wished I could buy a healthcare policy that was primarily directed at catostrophic type expense - my feeling is that, expensive as meds are, I'd probably spend less on them than on insurance.
But my belief is that health insurance would likely be cheaper if government would restrain itself from distorting the market.
Milton Friedman has a nice essay on healthcare and insurance that is widely available on the net.
My wife has a pre existing condition that no insurer wants to touch, just about impossible to buy insurance for her. I still don't think it's the state's place to be selling insurance, not being a believer in socialized medicine.
Agreed on all counts. If you're interested you might want to google "Consumer Driven Healthcare". Its primary advocate is a UVA prof named Regina Herzlinger, who makes a strong case for returning market dynamics to the field, and lays out proposed steps for doing so. Famed Harvard business guru Michael Porter and many others are also on board.
Interesting, I'll check it out, thanks.
I spend some time around Charlottesville, anyway.
She's written two books on it. At times they can come across as a bit pompous, but I was really fascinated by her proposals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.