William, you are so right. That criminal investigation of insurance CLAIM fraud, if successful could potentially be the death nell of State Farm. THEY\’LL SETTLE, if they can suppress charges. When an insurance company unscrupulously tries to inflate its pricing, fines are paid and a few heads roll, ie: Spitzer and the big commercial P&C companies, BUT, (if proven) when CLAIMS ARE FALSIFIED on such an ENOURMOUS SCALE, especially to the general public, ie: homeowners vs big business, the TRUST that this company built over decades would be erroded, perhaps to the extent of enourmous loss of business in the future. Or, perhaps State Farm planned these shananagains to entice people to move thier homeowners polcies to more Trusted Choices in insurance companies thereby relieving State Farm of the MESSY job of NON RENEWING to REDUCE THEIR EXPOSURE. Whoa! if that is the case, the underwriter that came up with this idea should be a writer for Boston Legal… DENNY CRANE!
THE REALITY OF THIS PROBLEM IS:
State Farm started the problem about 30 years ago when it started to DAMN the basic tenant of insurance, spreading of the risk, and BUY MAJORITY MARKET SHARE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE 70\’S AND 80\’S, via LOW PRICING and BROADEST COVERAGES (resembling maintenance policies) for homeowners, ESPECIALLY WITHIN FLORIDA AND ALL THE COASTAL STATES WHERE ALL OF THE GROWTH WAS MIGRATING TO. They are now getting what they deserve, starting with Andrew in 92 for PURPOSFULLY SUPPRESSING THE ABILITY OF OTHER INSURANCE CARRIERS TO COMPETITIVELY ENTER THE MARKET AND BECOME VIABLE, PROFITABLE CONTRIBUTORS TO CAPACITY. Isn\’t it obvious that ONE insurance company STATE FARM can not realistically hold majority market share and exposure for all personaly insured property in the USA, especially in CAT/COASTAL areas. If the risk was spread between 50 or if needed 100 COMPANIES new companies over past 30 years, pricing would have been steadily increasing over the decades and exposure would be much more evenly spread. The insurance commissioners of each state should have required more actuarily sound requirements for risk spread and pricing so catastrophies would not be so overwhelminly detrimental to the few market whoring carriers. But insurance commissioners like happy voters and voters that are paying the same price for HO insurance in Florida that they did in Ohio don\’t complain. UNTIL AFTER THE STORM AND THE PARTY IS OVER. OUR COUNTRY NEEDS 100 MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SPREAD PROPERTY RISK AND ALLOW AMERICA TO RETAIN ITS NON SOCIALIZED INSURANCE DELIVERY SYSTEM OR, WIND AND EARTHQUAKE will be federalized, perhaps like FLOOD/NFIP then the only exposure to insurers would be Fire and Theft… WHOOPIE at that point, STATE FARM COULD BE THE ONLY COMPANY THE USA NEEDS FOR HOME AND SMALL COMMERCIAL WHICH THEY WOULD, ONCE AGAIN, GIVE AWAY TO OBTAIN MAJORITY MARKET SHARE (FREE FROM CAT EXPOSURE) JUST TO SELL THIER OTHER LINES: AUTO, LIFE, BANK CD\’S, LTC. Heck, they could offer FREE HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE if you give them your Auto, Life and CD! Even the LIZZARD can\’t do that!
At that point, we might as well GO SOCIAL!
Only State Farm, maybee Allstate would be necessary to insure ALL PERSONAL LINES and MEDIUM/SMALL COMMERCIAL in the US. The remaining P&C insurance companies and independent agencies would all be FIGHTING FEARCELY for the LARGER COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS.
GREAT FUN! I can\’t wait for a national CAT program. I\’m a believer in possitive thinking, and I possitively believe this will happen,that\’s why I\’m getting my CPCU so I can compete on those highly contested LARGE ACCOUNTS.
I am not a State Farm fan, but, boy I hope they prevail in this case. And I hope they don\’t cave in a make a settlement. The exclusion is clear and should stand. Property owners had the option of buying flood and didn\’t – it\’s their choice!
They\’re a mutual company, their policyholders own them. Of course they\’re going to try and settle because their policyholders want them to. Too bad for the policyholders who didn\’t receive damage… it\’s their money.
Cave and settle? I think not, they are buying themselves out of a criminal investigation. If they settle its because they know that the gig is up and they are in deep legal crap!!!
Omnisure,
If your argument held water there would be no other competition. I do not represent State Farm or Allstate and we compete nicely, thank you.
Conspiracy theory ?
I think not…….
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
William, you are so right. That criminal investigation of insurance CLAIM fraud, if successful could potentially be the death nell of State Farm. THEY\’LL SETTLE, if they can suppress charges. When an insurance company unscrupulously tries to inflate its pricing, fines are paid and a few heads roll, ie: Spitzer and the big commercial P&C companies, BUT, (if proven) when CLAIMS ARE FALSIFIED on such an ENOURMOUS SCALE, especially to the general public, ie: homeowners vs big business, the TRUST that this company built over decades would be erroded, perhaps to the extent of enourmous loss of business in the future. Or, perhaps State Farm planned these shananagains to entice people to move thier homeowners polcies to more Trusted Choices in insurance companies thereby relieving State Farm of the MESSY job of NON RENEWING to REDUCE THEIR EXPOSURE. Whoa! if that is the case, the underwriter that came up with this idea should be a writer for Boston Legal… DENNY CRANE!
THE REALITY OF THIS PROBLEM IS:
State Farm started the problem about 30 years ago when it started to DAMN the basic tenant of insurance, spreading of the risk, and BUY MAJORITY MARKET SHARE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LATE 70\’S AND 80\’S, via LOW PRICING and BROADEST COVERAGES (resembling maintenance policies) for homeowners, ESPECIALLY WITHIN FLORIDA AND ALL THE COASTAL STATES WHERE ALL OF THE GROWTH WAS MIGRATING TO. They are now getting what they deserve, starting with Andrew in 92 for PURPOSFULLY SUPPRESSING THE ABILITY OF OTHER INSURANCE CARRIERS TO COMPETITIVELY ENTER THE MARKET AND BECOME VIABLE, PROFITABLE CONTRIBUTORS TO CAPACITY. Isn\’t it obvious that ONE insurance company STATE FARM can not realistically hold majority market share and exposure for all personaly insured property in the USA, especially in CAT/COASTAL areas. If the risk was spread between 50 or if needed 100 COMPANIES new companies over past 30 years, pricing would have been steadily increasing over the decades and exposure would be much more evenly spread. The insurance commissioners of each state should have required more actuarily sound requirements for risk spread and pricing so catastrophies would not be so overwhelminly detrimental to the few market whoring carriers. But insurance commissioners like happy voters and voters that are paying the same price for HO insurance in Florida that they did in Ohio don\’t complain. UNTIL AFTER THE STORM AND THE PARTY IS OVER. OUR COUNTRY NEEDS 100 MORE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SPREAD PROPERTY RISK AND ALLOW AMERICA TO RETAIN ITS NON SOCIALIZED INSURANCE DELIVERY SYSTEM OR, WIND AND EARTHQUAKE will be federalized, perhaps like FLOOD/NFIP then the only exposure to insurers would be Fire and Theft… WHOOPIE at that point, STATE FARM COULD BE THE ONLY COMPANY THE USA NEEDS FOR HOME AND SMALL COMMERCIAL WHICH THEY WOULD, ONCE AGAIN, GIVE AWAY TO OBTAIN MAJORITY MARKET SHARE (FREE FROM CAT EXPOSURE) JUST TO SELL THIER OTHER LINES: AUTO, LIFE, BANK CD\’S, LTC. Heck, they could offer FREE HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE if you give them your Auto, Life and CD! Even the LIZZARD can\’t do that!
At that point, we might as well GO SOCIAL!
Only State Farm, maybee Allstate would be necessary to insure ALL PERSONAL LINES and MEDIUM/SMALL COMMERCIAL in the US. The remaining P&C insurance companies and independent agencies would all be FIGHTING FEARCELY for the LARGER COMMERCIAL ACCOUNTS.
GREAT FUN! I can\’t wait for a national CAT program. I\’m a believer in possitive thinking, and I possitively believe this will happen,that\’s why I\’m getting my CPCU so I can compete on those highly contested LARGE ACCOUNTS.
I am not a State Farm fan, but, boy I hope they prevail in this case. And I hope they don\’t cave in a make a settlement. The exclusion is clear and should stand. Property owners had the option of buying flood and didn\’t – it\’s their choice!
They\’re a mutual company, their policyholders own them. Of course they\’re going to try and settle because their policyholders want them to. Too bad for the policyholders who didn\’t receive damage… it\’s their money.
Cave and settle? I think not, they are buying themselves out of a criminal investigation. If they settle its because they know that the gig is up and they are in deep legal crap!!!
Omnisure,
If your argument held water there would be no other competition. I do not represent State Farm or Allstate and we compete nicely, thank you.
Conspiracy theory ?
I think not…….