You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Governor Scott’s Property Insurance Reform Is Necessary Step In Right Direction”.
Governor Scott’s Property Insurance Reform Is Necessary Step In Right Direction
May 18, 2011
6 Responses to “Governor Scott’s Property Insurance Reform Is Necessary Step In Right Direction”
Without knowing all the facts about the bill, I would say if the law attracts additional property insurance providers to the state then it will have done a good thing. The more competitive the market is the lower the premiums will go.
I understand ‘competitive market’ and no doubt ole’ Charlie was a ditz (to say the least) but here’s the good, the bad and………
from http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/05/scott_signs_sweeping_home_insu.html
The new law makes more than 20 changes. Among other things, it will:
Shorten the time policyholders have to file claims to two years for sinkhole claims and three years for hurricane claims, from the current five years;
Allow insurers to withhold full payment for home damage claims until the work is performed and expenses incurred, except for homes that are destroyed;
Require policyholders to pay up to half of the cost of testing for sinkholes if the insurer denies the claim and its engineer determines there is no sinkhole;
Allow insurers to require an inspection of a property before issuing coverage for sinkholes;
Allow insurers to drop sinkhole coverage for anything other than the main building on a property;
Prevent regulators from urging insurers to charge policyholders less for advertising and agent commissions;
Require Citizens Property Insurance to hire an outside consultant to examine whether the state-run insurer could save money and do a better job if it shifted some work done by full-time employees to contractors;
Require new home insurance companies to have $15 million in reserves starting this year and existing insurers to have $15 million by 2021, with some exceptions;
Bar public insurance adjusters, hired by policyholders in claims disputes with insurers, from advertising with logos that resemble those of a government agency or saying there is “no risk” to a policyholder by filing a claim;
Prohibit public adjusters from charging more than 10 percent of the portion of a claims payment they help recover for Citizens policyholders;
Require public adjusters to provide a copy of their contracts with policyholders to insurers;
Allow insurers that offer policies covering both a home and vehicle to drop coverage if they warn policyholders at least 90 days in advance, a perk intended to draw an unnamed insurer to the state; and
Clarify gray areas of state law to say the Legislature intends to reduce disputes and litigation from sinkhole claims, a standard that might be applied to pending claims disputes.
……then the ugly ?
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/fl-patel-insurance-response-letter-20110518,0,3691737.story
Bill,
That’s an opinion letter from the liberal rag the dumb-sentinel and by no means is the end all say all. I’ve made sizable claims to an insurance company before for damages and they paid the claim in portions, not a lump sum already. Most contractors make repairs and do work on the basis that they will be paid when the insurance company pays. Many do understand that average homeowners do not have thousands in disposable cash lying around for unexpected expenses. If they don’t want to play ball, they don’t work.
I’ve seen people take thousands from insurance claims and take vacations, buy cars and piss it away on foolish things and then live in their home all tore up or they fix things half assed. A homeowners insurance policy is to actually repair your home if something unexpected happens to protect the intrest of the mortgage holders. It doesn’t mean that you’ve won the lottery after your house has been damaged to foolishly piss the money away on bullsh!t things. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect homeowners to use the claim money for the intent it was issued.
To file a claim 3 years after a hurricane is completely reasonable and fraudulant claims only make honest people like us pay more in premiums.
Sandman, This was the only quick link I could find explaining some of the facts of the bill. For clarity I should have put a ‘?’ after ‘bad’ (as in what’s so bad ?) as I did with ‘ugly?’ in questioning whether or not the letter writer in the second link was correct.
Personally I have no problem with any of what was pointed out. But then too that’s not the all of it which led me back to the LTE I’d read yesterday morning.
What stood out was: “And still, there is no guarantee the homeowner will be fully reimbursed”. Perhaps that was just as ‘true’ before, but the letter writer seemed to know what he was talking about. Again the ‘?’ after ugly simply meant I was questioning whether or not this was possibly consumer negitive.
One thing for sure, I’d hate to do a class A repair or construction job thinking I’d have the money coming to me and then find out I’m screwed.
Now off now to the Tally website for a hard copy review.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Committees/BillSummaries/2011/html/0408BI
“Replacement Cost Coverage
The bill modifies how insurers must pay dwelling or personal property losses on a replacement cost basis. For a dwelling loss, the insurer must initially pay the actual cash value, minus the deductible. Subsequently the insurer must pay any amounts necessary to perform repairs as work is performed. If a total loss of a dwelling occurs, the insurer must pay the entire replacement cost coverage without hold back of depreciation in value pursuant to the Valued Policy Law.”
So now ONLY under a TOTAL loss would replacement cost be paid(?) but doesn’t the prior language indicate a replacement repair must be done, and NOT out of pocket either first as David Weiss indicated (as an attorney) would have those catastrophic consequences .
So IS Mr. Weiss is just a “myopia” of a class of profiteers OR ?
Sure beats Crists welfare insurance crap. One big storm would have sunk the state.
I am all for free markets.