Replies

Of all the slimeball businesses out there, insurance companies are right up there with oil companies and legal firms.

Do they have a right not insure homes in New jersy - of course they do.

Does New Jersey have a right to retaliate against them? Of course it does. But it won't.

NExt to the New Jersey Education Association, the Cops Unions, the Construction Unions and the Trial Court Attorneys, the Insurnace companies are the highest contributors to the prostitutes who sit in that brothel called the New Jersey State Legislature.

Does New Jersey have a right to retaliate against them? Of course it does. But it won't.

That's the kind of silly talk one would expect on DU. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit, no other reason. (As are almost all other businesses*.) They would be very glad to write policies if they could collect premiums that offset the risks. Most of the worst risk (Katrina or 9/11 like loses) are reinsured through collabratives likes Lloyds.

Clearly, All-but-some-States does not believe that regulators would allow them to charge premiums that would allow them to make a profit.

*There are exceptions, e.g., Air America.

Of all the slimeball businesses out there, insurance companies are right up there...

The overwhelming majority of those in the insurance industry are honorable, and honest people.

If insurors are such "slimeballs", why aren't you self-insuring? What kind of person would continually funnel money to "slimeballs"?

It would be so nice, just for one day, to not hear how Americans are scum. You have made it clear that today will not be that day.

What are you talking about?

If Allstate doesn't feel they can make money selling insurance in a particular location that's their choice - not yours and not the state's.

If you think it is such a money making opportunity then you sell insurance there. That's how free markets work.

The more states regulate insurance companies the more shortages there will be in insurance. It isn't rocket science... Anything you put price controls on soon is in short supply and yet people are bent on doing just that over and over again... Stupid is as stupid does.

"Of all the slimeball businesses out there, insurance companies are right up there with oil companies and legal firms."

Absolutely. I'm a capitalist, of course, but there are certain businesses that should exist above and beyond simple profit. Other examples, IMHO, include nursing homes and childcare centers.

But I digress, insurance companies are a necessary evil, but that doesn't mean they have to take the "evil" part to heart so strongly...

Of all the slimeball businesses out there, insurance companies are right up there with oil companies and legal firms.

I'm not fan of the insurance business either, but it is a business and they have to make certain decisions. It is a heavily-regulated industry, perhaps the most heavily-regulated industry we have except for the nuclear industry and the banking industry.

Insurance companies have to maintain what is called a claim reserve, an amount of liquidity that covers what might reasonably expected they would have to provide to cover policyholder casualty losses. In the event of an unexpected, sudden drawdown of this reserve, they must reconstitute it quickly and right the balance between possible claims and the amount of reserve. That means either raising premium rates or reducing exposure, or both. Allstate is probably focusing on limiting future liabilities to protect current policyholders, and will likely be raising rates on existing policies to replenish their reserves. I know my homeowners rates have gone up, and I am nowhere near a coastline, and haven't had any casualty losses for a good number of years now. But because of the spread-the-risk basis of the insurance business, we all pay a larger amount to keep the pie whole.

That said, I am wondering if cutting off new applicants completely was really the only option? Maybe offering new policies at a higher rate would have had the same effect as limiting the future claims liability. The secondary effect would be writing fewer [policies, which is what they got anyway when they nixed the new applicants.

Does New Jersey have a right to retaliate against them? Of course it does. But it won't.

NO! For what? Chosing not to enter a high-risk business should be NO BUSINESS of the Govt and certainly should not result in retaliation.

What a crappy statist idea that is! Let's punish companies using the crushing power of the state when they don't offer services we want.

New Jersey also has a very high rate of insurance fraud. This could be an underlying reason. Corruption is rampant for auto fraud and may be for homeowners as well. I work for an insurance company and write homeowners policies in Florida daily. People fail to understand the massive cost and impact that one major catastrophe can have on the industry.

State Farm nearly went belly-up when Andrew hit Miami. There recovery was stifled by the recent storms of the last couple of bad years. One major storm can wipe out an insurance companies reserves (or catastrophe funds). Many state laws require insurance companies to retain massive funds tucked away to meet claim demands.

When the states in turn refuse to allow companies to raise rates -- the alternative is a refusal to insure. If you owned a private businees insuring homes or automobiles, would you want to do business in places where statistics show you will lose money?