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

To: Eagle Eye
I read your post, and understand the problem just fine despite your protestations to the contrary. I was not referring to just you, I also said or others.

And, the problem IS the government and the regulations they have enacted. They have mandated coverage even for those that own their homes free and clear, regulated rate increases and now are threatening to drive more carriers out of the state who might refuse to do what the legislature wants, even if they find it unwise. I've read multiple articles about the problem, because as an ex-Florida resident who has great interest in eventually returning after I retire, I follow this closely...not to mention that my daughter will probably be in Gainesville next year at UFL and I'm debating buying a condo or something rather than paying for a dorm.

Here are some articles that describe some of the main problems:

http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_pc&id=74189

Here's an excerpt:

Gelber said he is pleased the House isn't going along with Senate provisions to allow homeowners to take on larger deductibles and to buy less coverage than what would be needed to rebuild after a major storm, and even go without any windstorm insurance if they have paid off their mortgages. Although such changes would reduce premiums, they also would mean homeowners would take on more risk, Gelber said. If their homes were destroyed, they would have to pay bigger shares of the costs to rebuild.

Here's another that deals with the OIR and rate increases which need to be approved:

http://www.foley.com/publications/pub_detail.aspx?pubid=3430

Ratemaking: To the extent an insurer has exposed its capital to the risk of hurricane loss in lieu of procuring reinsurance, the insurer is entitled to a reasonable rate of return commensurate with the risk. Beginning July 1, 2007, in any area the Florida OIR determines to be competitive, a property insurer may increase rates by up to 10 percent in any rating territory (subject to a five percent statewide cap) without being subject to disapproval as excessive or unfairly discriminatory.

Let's see....regulate rate increases, mandate everyone have certain coverages...that's a bad combination in and of itself, and this original article we were all responding to was a additional threat from the FL gov't to further reduce the insurance options available by potentially driving more carriers out of the state....Next we'll hear about the car insurance crisis in FL since no one will be offering that either. Yet, some on this thread are cheering the FL legislature on in this course of insanity....because, well, their property insurance rates are impinging on their lifestyle, or are 'unavailable'.

The answer is (since you apparently couldn't deduct it from my prior post) to get the government OUT of the insurance business other than to verify the financial strength of the companies/individuals that are offering insurance products in the state, and let individuals decide what coverage they want to pay for, and the insurers decide what rates they need to assume the risk. This will go a long way toward restoring the availability of insurance carriers AND increasing competition for lower rates (they may not be as low as you and others want or feel is 'reasonable', but at least you'll have options).

I understand the problem, and also that this may be catastrophic to FL real estate values and it's economy...but it's a problem that is due in large part to the same government that so many are flocking to for a solution now....and the reality is that the government can do nothing other than attempt to the solve the problem with some kind of income redistribution scheme...which will happen just as soon as the benevolent 'state' ends up assuming all or most of the risk of a natural catastrophe. You know who is going to pay for that, right?

223 posted on 01/20/2007 6:42:37 PM PST by Ethrane ("semper consolar")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies ]


To: Ethrane
Ratemaking: To the extent an insurer has exposed its capital to the risk of hurricane loss in lieu of procuring reinsurance, the insurer is entitled to a reasonable rate of return commensurate with the risk. Beginning July 1, 2007, in any area the Florida OIR determines to be competitive, a property insurer may increase rates by up to 10 percent in any rating territory (subject to a five percent statewide cap) without being subject to disapproval as excessive or unfairly discriminatory.

I would be ecstatic to have a 10% rate increase. As it stands right now, I'm facing a 25% increase followed 3 months later by a 55% increase. That's on top of back to back 100% rate increases. When people in FL talk about double digit increases, they don't mean something in the 10-20% range. They mean something in the 80-99% range. The typical rate increase here is now multiples of what people pay in total in other states.

224 posted on 01/20/2007 9:01:16 PM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies ]

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