Connecticut Asks Insurers: Waive Some Storm Deductibles

September 6, 2011

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:42 pm
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Can the insurers now turnaround and ask the CT policyholders to accept reduced limits???? Just wondering…

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:53 pm
    Jester says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Why should carriers waive a policy deductible that was in place for this exact reason? This is a social give-a-way that sets some dangerous precedent. It doesn’t matter what the magnitude of the storm was or how long it took to restore electricity. When a carrier elects to disregard its’ policy provisions, it’s opening the door to future demands. Based on this, everyone that has a claim should demand their deductible be waived.

  • September 6, 2011 at 3:19 pm
    Exadjuster says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Weren’t the rates set with the deductibles in mind?

    Wave deductibles = higher premiums.

    What part of “insurance” don’t these politicians understand?

  • September 6, 2011 at 4:44 pm
    JBPRS says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What was purchased?????????????????? This is those crazy politicians trying to change sold coverage after the fact.

  • September 6, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    Gene Pool says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Name the five carriers please. I’ll bet they don’t exist or have such a small market share it’d be moot.
    My carrier better say no, or they’ll soon be my prior carrier. Fireman’s Fund led the charge in waiving subsequent deductibles in the multiple storms of 2009 – but this was a single storm event. Big difference.

  • October 7, 2011 at 6:30 pm
    Jackie says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Crazy how big of an area these hurricanes of late encompass… never would have thought they would strike in CT!



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*