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 ...
Yikes.
It's the best legal way to literally PRINT MONEY that you can get away with!!
I think they are right.
It could happen........when it snows in Key West...........
You aren't. He has different risks than you do.
Does MetLife sell home insurance outside Florida? That was the criteria, not just insurance per se.
No law forces insurance companies to stay in the state, and if they walk out we're all screwed. Insurance companies provide an important service, and if they cannot be profitable, they'll take their business elsewhere.
For example, in FL you MUST have auto insurance so the insurance companies have a captive market.
Policemen: armed insurance agents.
What happened to capitalism?
If house are expensive to insure in Florida, then insurers should be still able to arrive at a price that allows them to offer a policy. For a high enough price, even hurricanes can be accounted for.
Are there other reasons that insurers don't want to do business in Florida (too many regulations, overly litigous environment, etc)?
the private marke is not dealing and can not deal as long as insurance is mandatory.
You have no "down pressure" if the product is mandatory.
insurance is not a free market industry.
you can not buy a home without insurance period.
and no you can't just say sell and move because we are not a nation of illiterate dessert nomads in tents. We have homes, jobs and family which mean we don't "just move" to some nowheresville small town.
This kind of "all or none" gambit hasn't worked very well in the past. Usually the insurance companies will say "Okay, bye...". Then, the insurance coverage falls onto the state or more properly, the government - and hence to the taxpayers. Oh well.
I believe that some property should be uninsurable and if the owner wants to build on it he does so at his own risk. Flood zones, hurricane zones, mud-slide zones, etc. I am sick of reimbursing and subsidizing via increased insurance rates on all of us for these property owners. I would venture a guess that most of this type of property is owned by people who could afford the gamble the rest would not take the gamble.
They just passed medical malpractice reform and the doctors even tried to rewrite the law so it would be financially impossible to sue doctors by caping the contingent fee to 10% of a claim. (it was bypassed which ticked off the doctors)
I think the real issue with the homes is that the house values are so high because this is where people want to live.
How many UBERmansions are there in southdakota?
"too many insurance companies . . .no one single company can spread the risk throughout their Florida policyholders"
Nah, they "re-insure" in large conglomorations --- each buying chunks of other company's risks.
Lloyds of London is an example of this.
Re-insurance is a huge business.
"insurance is mandatory"
Only liability insurance is mandatory.
Yes, most mortgage companies require casualty insurance, but that is a private issue.
Funny you should mention LOL. They are now one of the insurance companies of last resort here in Florida.........
How about just making it illegal for a bank to require wind storm insurance on a residential (for homestead) home?
since forcing everyone to have insurance did not work out.
What, you mean base a home mortgage solely on good credit? Why that wouldn't be fair to the disadvantaged! LOL Home insurance for fire I can see as a requirement and protection of the mortgage but I agree wind and storm should be an option and not a requirement. Neither do I believe the federal government should pay for the damage.
Don't even get me started on car insurance as I think that is the greatest of ripoffs. Penalties for those driving with no insurance not to mention driver license are insignificant. No fault is a farce!
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.