So now on top of all the regulation, and forced participation in liberal equality statutes, we are going to be forced to recognize an entire hurricane season as one incident, and waive deductibles?
Each occurence carries a deductible folks. That’s the contract you sign, and that’s the way it works. Your loss is a terrible thing, so is an insurance company that goes insolvent from freebies.
I agree witht he other comment posted. It’s absurd the think we would change the terms of an inforce contract. If we do that, perhaps we go to the banking industry and reduce all loans to 0.0%????
As a 30+ year GA, I recall that in “tenant” VM&M claims, we would never take more than one deductible for one particular item damaged. ie, you can only take one deductible for the bathroom sink (one-item) no matter how many cigarette burns are around the rim. I feel this philosophy could be applied to hurricane deductibles. ie, you can only damage the roof once.
I was surprised when I read this headline. Why is this a story? The hurricanes are separate events….where’s the controversy? Yes, I feel bad for the residents of Florida, who wouldn’t? But to penalize the insurers, many of whom are facing major increases in reinsurance costs or even facing insolvency. Why should the carriers suffer?
There are several circumstances that warrant whether we should apply separate deductibles for losses sustained during both hurricanes. For example: If the roof of house is blown off by Hurricane Charley, and the Insured took all reasonable steps to protect his home from further damage by tarping the roof, and hiring a contractor to replace the roof, but the contractor simply did not start before hurricane Fances, should the insured be penalized a second time, if it is reasonably apparent that the 2nd damages would not have occured, but for the first damage to the roof? What about the cases in which the first damage is indistinguishable from the 2nd damage?
I agree Curt, I have seen that many times as an independent adjuster. One deductible per item;
I have seen some companies take a harder line on VMM claims however; ie four cigarette burns on a carpet and you have to take FOUR deductibles. Kind of thinking that ends up in court eventually…
Unless the Florida Legislature wants to underwrite the additional cost, I would agree, one per occurrence! However, if the roof comes off in the first hurricane, the temp comes off in the second and again in the third, I personally would argue thats all one occurrence. Reasonable attempts to protect from further damage don’t cover 100mph + winds!
Spoken like true insurance company representatives. Be mindful of the fact that the minimum hurricane deductible for consumers is 2%. This was not optional. Interesting how we hear nothing from the carriers until it is time to step up and do the right thing. Pay now or pay later.
If the roof comes off during the first storm, the company cuts a check to replace the roof, one claim is set up for the first damage, since the roof is already blown off, there’s nothing to damage in the other storms, I doubt the blue tarp is over any deductible. The only then you have is the water damage to the house, which happened as an ensueing loss to the original claim, therefore, you set a suppliment up. Am I wrong? that’d just be one deductible. Now if the first storm took off the roof and the second flattened the rest of the house… that’s new damage, and another deductible for the new damage.
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.
So now on top of all the regulation, and forced participation in liberal equality statutes, we are going to be forced to recognize an entire hurricane season as one incident, and waive deductibles?
Each occurence carries a deductible folks. That’s the contract you sign, and that’s the way it works. Your loss is a terrible thing, so is an insurance company that goes insolvent from freebies.
Absolutely ridiculous notion.
I agree witht he other comment posted. It’s absurd the think we would change the terms of an inforce contract. If we do that, perhaps we go to the banking industry and reduce all loans to 0.0%????
As a 30+ year GA, I recall that in “tenant” VM&M claims, we would never take more than one deductible for one particular item damaged. ie, you can only take one deductible for the bathroom sink (one-item) no matter how many cigarette burns are around the rim. I feel this philosophy could be applied to hurricane deductibles. ie, you can only damage the roof once.
I was surprised when I read this headline. Why is this a story? The hurricanes are separate events….where’s the controversy? Yes, I feel bad for the residents of Florida, who wouldn’t? But to penalize the insurers, many of whom are facing major increases in reinsurance costs or even facing insolvency. Why should the carriers suffer?
There are several circumstances that warrant whether we should apply separate deductibles for losses sustained during both hurricanes. For example: If the roof of house is blown off by Hurricane Charley, and the Insured took all reasonable steps to protect his home from further damage by tarping the roof, and hiring a contractor to replace the roof, but the contractor simply did not start before hurricane Fances, should the insured be penalized a second time, if it is reasonably apparent that the 2nd damages would not have occured, but for the first damage to the roof? What about the cases in which the first damage is indistinguishable from the 2nd damage?
I agree Curt, I have seen that many times as an independent adjuster. One deductible per item;
I have seen some companies take a harder line on VMM claims however; ie four cigarette burns on a carpet and you have to take FOUR deductibles. Kind of thinking that ends up in court eventually…
Unless the Florida Legislature wants to underwrite the additional cost, I would agree, one per occurrence! However, if the roof comes off in the first hurricane, the temp comes off in the second and again in the third, I personally would argue thats all one occurrence. Reasonable attempts to protect from further damage don’t cover 100mph + winds!
Spoken like true insurance company representatives. Be mindful of the fact that the minimum hurricane deductible for consumers is 2%. This was not optional. Interesting how we hear nothing from the carriers until it is time to step up and do the right thing. Pay now or pay later.
If the roof comes off during the first storm, the company cuts a check to replace the roof, one claim is set up for the first damage, since the roof is already blown off, there’s nothing to damage in the other storms, I doubt the blue tarp is over any deductible. The only then you have is the water damage to the house, which happened as an ensueing loss to the original claim, therefore, you set a suppliment up. Am I wrong? that’d just be one deductible. Now if the first storm took off the roof and the second flattened the rest of the house… that’s new damage, and another deductible for the new damage.
Ridiculous comment – “that’s the contract you sign” There are no other choices. Continuing damage from one storm to the next should be 1 deductible.
Ridiculous comment – “that’s the contract you sign” There are no other choices. Continuing damage from one storm to the next should be 1 deductible.