Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Insurers told: All or none [Homeowners Insurance in FL]
The St. Petersburg Times ^ | 1/18/2007 | Jennifer Liberto and Joni James

Posted on 01/18/2007 9:00:06 AM PST by doc30

TALLAHASSEE - Florida lawmakers appear ready to deliver on one of Gov. Charlie Crist's campaign promises to punish insurers who have retreated from the state's property market while still writing other insurance in the Sunshine State, such as auto.

In a surprise voice vote Wednesday, the Florida Senate agreed to force Florida insurance companies who write property insurance in other states to offer it here if they want to continue writing any insurance in this state. The House has a similar proposal.

"The 'cherry-picking' in this state has got to stop," said Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, as he proposed the new language on the Senate floor with co-sponsor Sen. Ronda Storms, R-Brandon. "We've got to send a message to the insurance industry, because we've heard that message from our homeowners back home that they won't tolerate the cherry-picking in this state any longer."

(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: florida; insurance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-245 next last
To: rodguy911
You absolutely can pick and choose with your customers. you don't sell them anything they want, only what you are inclined to sell. If they don't want to be in a money losing business they should be allowed to opt out of it and still do business. government has no business interfering with the free market.

This can only end badly.

61 posted on 01/18/2007 10:11:10 AM PST by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sicon
If I own a home well inland in Florida (as in, much less likely to be blown down or washed away by a hurricane), why should I be forced to subsidize the risk that you incur by owning a house on the beach?

This statement alone indicates that you have no idea what you are talking about. Insurance is based on spreading the risk. Not everyone in Florida lives on the beach, but we all are at risk here.

Complaining about insurance companies not wanting to cover your house which is in a hurricane prone area is the same as the overweight, junk-food scarfing, cigarette smoking slob who insists that they should be given health insurance for the same premium as someone who watches what they eat, exercises, etc.

And this one takes the cake. You have no idea what it is like to worry whether you will have insurance next year, or what it might cost. When your insurance doubles, and then doubles again, and might just dissappear all together, it is a bonafied CRISIS!

Homeowners insurance is REQUIRED by anyone with a mortgage. It is also desired by anyone that would like to keep his or her house should the paper boy fall on your driveway and bust his kneecap. Nobody is suggesting that Insurance companies lose money either. I do think that it is unfair for a company to offer Homeowners insurance in one state (or county) and not another. If you bought a house in Florida today, your choices in insurance are one: Citizen's.

62 posted on 01/18/2007 10:19:09 AM PST by Mr. Quarterpanel (I am not an actor, but I play one on TV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet
I have USAA and live on coastal Georgia. No problem with homeowner's insurance. We don't get the hurricanes like FLA or SC/NC.
I love USAA, but surprised they won't insure coastal property.
63 posted on 01/18/2007 10:20:45 AM PST by GeorgefromGeorgia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

I think we can count on policyholders in MT objecting strongly to their rates going up significantly so that homeowners in FL don't have to pay so much.


64 posted on 01/18/2007 10:23:58 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ThisLittleLightofMine
Perhaps the law should change....no more mandatory insurance.

For certain sure nobody will give you a mortgage on an uninsured property.

65 posted on 01/18/2007 10:26:22 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: doc30

I checked on my insurance payment this year as my "mortgage" payment hasn't changed at all.

Amazingly enough, living near Orlando, my insurance hasn't gone up a bit in the past few years.

I should go do some major knocking on wood now. Be back later ;)


66 posted on 01/18/2007 10:26:46 AM PST by VeniVidiVici (Celebrate Monocacy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift; Joe Brower

ping...


67 posted on 01/18/2007 10:29:24 AM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30
I work for a large insurance company that will remain unnamed, and we are currently writing NO home insurance in FL. We do write auto in FL, though, but rates are crazy in a lot of state.

There are also a lot of carriers pulling out of NJ and NY coastal areas. We get a lot of calls for those, too.

68 posted on 01/18/2007 10:29:24 AM PST by arizonarachel (Lord, thank you for this miracle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
N.O. had no hurricane codes which is why many of their homes are just plain gone.

Wrong, but a good attempt.

69 posted on 01/18/2007 10:32:31 AM PST by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Quarterpanel
Not everyone in Florida lives on the beach, but we all are at risk here.

I live about 10 miles inland, in a well-drained location about 60 feet above sea level. If I board up well, I should have minimal damage even from a major storm.

Should I pay the same amount per $100,000 of value as somebody with a new $5M home right on the beach, which will absolutely, positively be destroyed if a Cat 4 comes ashore there?

If so, I am paying part of the risk for somebody with a great deal more money than I have. Those on the coast generally are wealthier and more politically powerful than those inland. That's why the state refuses to allow individual risk assessment by property.

70 posted on 01/18/2007 10:37:26 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JulieRNR21; kinganamort; katherineisgreat; floriduh voter; summer; Goldwater Girl; windchime; ...
Florida Freeper


71 posted on 01/18/2007 10:39:46 AM PST by Joe Brower (The Constitution defines Conservatism. *NRA*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc30
bump


72 posted on 01/18/2007 10:44:56 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rodguy911

They ought to do the same with health insurance too.


73 posted on 01/18/2007 10:45:05 AM PST by tom paine 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I think you hit on the REAL problem.

A home along the ocean should be building for the worst case scenario not the most common bad scenario.

That 4 million dollar home should be build for a cat 5.

Construction codes do not say what a person can or can not build or where they can live in THIS case, just to the level of quality they must build.

Perhaps what we need is a rating system for individual homes. So a house with a rating of 3 will survive a category 3 with no damage. Thus we get away from the "block" system and go into the personal responsibility system.


74 posted on 01/18/2007 10:51:13 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Less competition means higher prices. Insurance companies already invest reserve money. You can spread the risk inland by raising inland prices but why should they pay high rates for low risk homes?

Insurance companies reduce risk by buying reinsurance to insure themselves against catastrophic losses. Reinsurance for insurance companies is relatively cheap but more than coastal homeowners can afford. New money is needed for realistic loss projections.

Coastal homeowners have a potential source of new money available to them: state revenues from offshore drilling. Awkward of course because the state holds the rights to the money. Since the pristine seaview affects the coastal residents primarily, the state could allow drilling and use the procedes to buy down reinsurance rates. Residents lose some of their view but benefit by lower insurance rates.

The days of having it all are over.

75 posted on 01/18/2007 10:52:01 AM PST by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: MARTIAL MONK

I'm not talking about "less competition", I'm talking NO competition, at all. The State of Florida would essentially become "self-insured" and de-facto owners of the building and supply industry.....


76 posted on 01/18/2007 10:56:35 AM PST by Red Badger (New! HeadOn Hemorrhoid Medication for Liberals!.........Apply directly to forehead.........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

What about the person in the 45 year old mobile home 5 miles from a paved road in a county with only a volunteer fire department?

Should he pay the same per square foot as you?

BTW, he has three Dobermans, a Rotwieller, and a couple Pit Bulls!


77 posted on 01/18/2007 10:56:46 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO because I'm too conservative to be a real Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Do you live in Florida or have personal experience with hurricanes, risk assessments and damage appraisals?


78 posted on 01/18/2007 10:58:28 AM PST by Eagle Eye (I'm a RINO because I'm too conservative to be a real Republican.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: LadyNavyVet

IMHO, state insurance regulators should only ensure that the companies have adequate statutory capital to underwrite policies in their state, so that snake-oil insurance companies don't simply file bankruptcy when there are many claims to be paid. Laissez faire, buyer beware capitalism fails here because people can't be expected to become expert in analyzing insurers' financial statements.

The regulators should NOT be in the business of determining premiums, what policies can or cannot be written in a particular state, etc., however. The private market can deal with this just fine. People can then shop based upon prices and coverage while being assured that the companies will have the dough to pony up when the time comes.


79 posted on 01/18/2007 10:59:29 AM PST by dashing doofus (Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
What about the person in the 45 year old mobile home 5 miles from a paved road in a county with only a volunteer fire department?

Should he pay the same per square foot as you?

Nope. He has different risks than I do.

80 posted on 01/18/2007 11:03:08 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 241-245 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson