4 ms·

No word on home insurance rates? It's already completely insane in the SE (and other regions of the country) and can only get worse. I don't see how it's possib

by bbqfog 2y ago

No word on home insurance rates? It's already completely insane in the SE (and other regions of the country) and can only get worse. I don't see how it's possibly sustainable or what will be done. With the current state of insurance, it's "normal" for your mortgage payment to jump every year or two to compensate for insurance increases in your escrow account.

torlok 2y ago
In Florida insurance companies outright refuse to cover some places.
- bonestamp2 2y ago
  This is also true in Alabama, California, Louisiana, and Texas. In all of these states, the government has been forced to pick up the slack and offer insurance where none of the private insurance companies will.
howard941 2y ago
40% year over year premium raises aren't sustainable. Are they justified? I don't think so because the legislature essentially eliminated protections against bad faith claim denials under the guise of deregulation and "tort reform" while inviting in fly-by-night insurers.
- vkou 2y ago
  That's because the legitimate insurers ran the numbers, and concluded that they can't provide insurance at a price anyone can afford. So they left the state. You get what you vote for, and Florida has been consistently voting for denial and corruption and mismanagement. Instead of doing it's job, and doing anything to mitigate these disasters, or making hard decisions about where people should not be building, the government's too busy attacking homosexuals and the 'woke'. Its what the voters want, it's what the voters get. The 'price of living in paradise'.
  - howard941 2y ago
    All of this bullshit about wokeness and sexualized books succeeded in distracting from the need to mitigate and from the thing you mentioned: Rampant corruption and mismanagement (and much more). And it's really blatant corruption and favoritism. The people at fault keep getting votes and claim supermajorities that remove all hope of fixing the faults.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
My mem and pep moved back to New England from around Tampa because insurance was killin em.
bonestamp2 2y ago
Same, my home insurance in the SW is roughly $5000/year and then another $5000/year for wild fire insurance, and another $1000/yr for earthquake insurance... so about $11,000/yr for full home insurance. My home isn't unusually large for the area or anything like that: 4 bedrooms, no basement. We live below our means, so I don't know how most other people afford it. We need some kind of insurance reform. Insurance works best when there is one extremely large pool of consumers to offset the risk of a catastrophic event in one small area of that pool. The risk pools keep getting smaller as private insurance companies stop offering high risk insurance in markets that suffer from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wild fires. Several state governments have been forced to pick up the slack by offering a small pool of high risk (and therefore high cost) insurance to those residents. I get it, private insurance companies want to make as much profit as possible and those markets are killing their profits. They should have the right to pull out of those markets if they want, but I would propose that if a private insurance companies should not be able to selectively offer different insurance in different risk markets. So, for example, if State Farm wants the privilege of selling auto insurance to California's 39 million residents, they also have to offer home/fire insurance (nearly all private insurance companies are not writing new home insurance policies in California due to high risk of wild fires, but they do offer other types of insurance). In other words, it should be all or nothing if they want to participant in any geographic market. If they still don't want to offer it after such a law, that's ok because then the government's insurance pool can pickup the lower risk insurance (car, home, life, umbrella) to help offset the cost of the higher risk fire insurance (in the California example). The same would be true in other states that have single vertical government pools for different natural disasters (Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama). I'm sure there are better ideas, but this is just one option that comes to mind.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Maybe insurance should be changed. Everyone has to get insurance, money goes to pool. Then claims are processed. At end of the year totals are tallied and if there has been more claims than paid in extra bill is send to everyone next January. If less claims than expected next years insurance is cheaper. Right to run scheme for say 10 year period is auctioned off to lowest bidder.

by bbqfog 2y ago

torlok 2y ago

In Florida insurance companies outright refuse to cover some places.

bonestamp2 2y ago
This is also true in Alabama, California, Louisiana, and Texas. In all of these states, the government has been forced to pick up the slack and offer insurance where none of the private insurance companies will.

howard941 2y ago

40% year over year premium raises aren't sustainable. Are they justified? I don't think so because the legislature essentially eliminated protections against bad faith claim denials under the guise of deregulation and "tort reform" while inviting in fly-by-night insurers.

vkou 2y ago
That's because the legitimate insurers ran the numbers, and concluded that they can't provide insurance at a price anyone can afford. So they left the state. You get what you vote for, and Florida has been consistently voting for denial and corruption and mismanagement. Instead of doing it's job, and doing anything to mitigate these disasters, or making hard decisions about where people should not be building, the government's too busy attacking homosexuals and the 'woke'. Its what the voters want, it's what the voters get. The 'price of living in paradise'.
- howard941 2y ago
  All of this bullshit about wokeness and sexualized books succeeded in distracting from the need to mitigate and from the thing you mentioned: Rampant corruption and mismanagement (and much more). And it's really blatant corruption and favoritism. The people at fault keep getting votes and claim supermajorities that remove all hope of fixing the faults.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

My mem and pep moved back to New England from around Tampa because insurance was killin em.

bonestamp2 2y ago

Same, my home insurance in the SW is roughly $5000/year and then another $5000/year for wild fire insurance, and another $1000/yr for earthquake insurance... so about $11,000/yr for full home insurance. My home isn't unusually large for the area or anything like that: 4 bedrooms, no basement. We live below our means, so I don't know how most other people afford it. We need some kind of insurance reform. Insurance works best when there is one extremely large pool of consumers to offset the risk of a catastrophic event in one small area of that pool. The risk pools keep getting smaller as private insurance companies stop offering high risk insurance in markets that suffer from floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and wild fires. Several state governments have been forced to pick up the slack by offering a small pool of high risk (and therefore high cost) insurance to those residents. I get it, private insurance companies want to make as much profit as possible and those markets are killing their profits. They should have the right to pull out of those markets if they want, but I would propose that if a private insurance companies should not be able to selectively offer different insurance in different risk markets. So, for example, if State Farm wants the privilege of selling auto insurance to California's 39 million residents, they also have to offer home/fire insurance (nearly all private insurance companies are not writing new home insurance policies in California due to high risk of wild fires, but they do offer other types of insurance). In other words, it should be all or nothing if they want to participant in any geographic market. If they still don't want to offer it after such a law, that's ok because then the government's insurance pool can pickup the lower risk insurance (car, home, life, umbrella) to help offset the cost of the higher risk fire insurance (in the California example). The same would be true in other states that have single vertical government pools for different natural disasters (Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama). I'm sure there are better ideas, but this is just one option that comes to mind.

Ekaros 2y ago
Maybe insurance should be changed. Everyone has to get insurance, money goes to pool. Then claims are processed. At end of the year totals are tallied and if there has been more claims than paid in extra bill is send to everyone next January. If less claims than expected next years insurance is cheaper. Right to run scheme for say 10 year period is auctioned off to lowest bidder.