[wku man]

Liberty Mutual told my mother they were dropping her (and the rest of their homeowners' policy holders in Pinellas) this August. She's been with them for 30+ years...going all the way back to my childhood home in Kentucky. They had been insuring her home here in Idaho, so she dropped them. Went with a local company that gave her higher coverage for lower premiums than she had been paying. LM literally lost a lifetime customer because of their shenanigans in Florida.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Ethrane]

"Liberty Mutual told my mother they were dropping her (and the rest of their homeowners' policy holders in Pinellas) this August. She's been with them for 30+ years...going all the way back to my childhood home in Kentucky. They had been insuring her home here in Idaho, so she dropped them. Went with a local company that gave her higher coverage for lower premiums than she had been paying. LM literally lost a lifetime customer because of their shenanigans in Florida.

Whether your mom has been a customer for 30 years, or 300 years, should not make a difference to an insurer with sound business sense.

All that should matter is that they are able to justify the coverage of her insurable assets with the premiums they can charge.

The street goes both ways, does it not? If your mother's dwelling suffered a catastrophic loss in her first year of coverage, the insurance company would have taken it in the shorts by your account of the business situation...they had all the risk at the beginning, no?

And, if you say that the insurance companies risk in the first years of your mother's coverage were justified by the premiums they charged, then I would say that's an even exchange...your mother's mental well-being against the loss of her dwelling vs. the insurance companies profit.

Why is the situation now different? Just because the premiums are too much? Or, that the regulations by the state do not allow the charging of premiums that justify the risk exposure?