Correct title would be “Legislators consider voting for rate increases” or “Legislators agree to make it harder to write homeowners in Florida”…..cause that is exactly what is gonna happen if they do this.
Good point – I don’t seem to recall being granted permission to apply the policy as written each time a claim was filed.
Does anybody out there remember the old “excess profits” law in Florida? You can lose as much money as you can stand, but God forbid you make anything to cushion against future events. People seem bound and determined to live in a catastrophe-prone area like Florida, then complain when storms hit, criticize the insurers, and ask the government to bail them out – just to rebuild in the same location. Reminds me of the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I’ve never heard of anything other than “per claim” deductibles on homeowners policies. My question is, do they know something that we don’t? Is there really a fear that we may have another hurricane seaaon like this again, and do we really need to change legislation to create a single season deductible, or should we leave well enough alone. Insurance companies are by design “FOR PROFIT”, they will have to raise rates substantially to justify a single season deductible if the thought is that we will have multiple storms hit again, and if that is not the concern, why change it. I understand it was very hard on people to have mutiple deductibles on repeat storms, but they have no clue how expensive the coverage will be if they use the 2004 hurricane season as the model for rate changes. It has NEVER happened before and I am willing to take the chance. Now here is an idea, make it an option instead of a requirement, charge an additional premium to elect a single deductible, but still allow the current plan with a per claim basis. Lets see how willing consumers really are to PAY EXTRA for homeowners insurance to get the single deductible. I would venture to say that MOST insureds will elect to keep it the way it is and take the chance on multiple storms hitting again, and save hundreds of dollars a year on premiums. Will this create another E&O exposure for agents that automatically give the lower cost option in order to sell the policy, you bet it will, so they should require a signature on the application or supplemental app indicating the insured agrees to it.
Curtis, you indicated that people that “had not heard from an adjustor and had homes exposed to the elements(no roof or walls)” were the ones likely to complain about double deductibles. THEY WILL NOT HAVE TWO DEDUCTIBLES if they had not seen an adjustor between the two storms. NO companies applied 2 deductible if the adjustor did not see the property before the next storm, there is NO way for anyone to determine which storm caused what damage and the companies did not impose a second deductible. And the senario you painted would not have resulted in a second claim anyway. If there is no roof or no walls, it is called a total loss, no questions asked. There were obviously homes that had less damage than missing roofs or walls that could have sustained additional and different damage from a second storm. There is no historical evidence to indicate 2 deductibles should not apply if damage was from 2 events, but if it is not possible to draw the line on damages per event, an insured need only to say that they had no additional damage from the second storm and if no adjustor had seen the home, the same result occurs, one deductible for total damages. The people that are suffering are those that DID see an adjustor, and I see no reason not to impose the contractually agreed to second deductible. it may be painful but you get what you pay for. I believe that if they make it an OPTION, (instead of requirement) for insureds to select a single annual deductible, that 98% will not pay the extra money, but take the chance that it will be another 200 years before we have another year like this. It was 1960 when the last hurricane hit Lee & Charlotte counties (hurricane Donna) and by the way I’m not sure where the 5% ded for many of the devastated areas comes from. This is not accurate, as an agent in the hardest hit areas, most of the claims actually had $1000 hurricane deductibles or 2% of coverage “A”. Some insureds choose 5% to save money, but no carriers I am aware of required 5% unless the home was over $500,000. I can not speak for captives such as State Farm, Allstate etc.
The whole point to this mess is that there was a catastrophic event that affected millions of people and we can’t get life back to normal in a reasonable time period, having single deductible for the next time is NOT going to get homes fixed any faster, and no one should want an insurance company to be a savings account for deductibles. Rate will go up no matter what happens with deductibles because the companies must build up reserves to prepare for the next catastrophie, and like it or not insurance companies are FOR PROFIT.
the most outspoken of claimants in our state were those who had not heard from an adjuster and had homes exposed to the elements (no roof or walls)when the next storm came rumbling through. in this situation, should they really be on the hook for multiple deductibles when the loss could have been minimized had the carrier settled the first claim in time? i don’t think so. it is not as cut and dried as 2 different storms, 2 deductibles – when they happen that quickly in succession. the carrier shares in the loss, the area is typically in a federal state of emergency, so resources for getting homes repaired in time is severly limited. not to mention, many of the most devistated areas have a 5% Wind Ded. could you imagine paying the first $25,000 on repair on your $250,000 home if two storms strike back to back in the same week? again, goes back to probabilities; florida hasn’t seen a major hurricane since 1992 prior to the 2004 season, hence this was an anomamlity and rate pressure should not be affected by the single deductible law, if passed.
in response to living in “catastrophe-prone” areas such as “Florida” – the last hurricane to strike jacksonville, where i live, was in 1964, 9 years before i was born.
as far as i’m concerned, anyplace that that has had a catastophe since 1964 is more prone to them than here.
even parts of southwest florida aka punta gorda have not seen anything worthy of the “catastophe” label for more than half a century.
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.
Correct title would be “Legislators consider voting for rate increases” or “Legislators agree to make it harder to write homeowners in Florida”…..cause that is exactly what is gonna happen if they do this.
Why did insurers have to ” get permission” in 1992 to charge separate deductibles for separate losses? Wasn’t that a standard policy provision ?
Good point – I don’t seem to recall being granted permission to apply the policy as written each time a claim was filed.
Does anybody out there remember the old “excess profits” law in Florida? You can lose as much money as you can stand, but God forbid you make anything to cushion against future events. People seem bound and determined to live in a catastrophe-prone area like Florida, then complain when storms hit, criticize the insurers, and ask the government to bail them out – just to rebuild in the same location. Reminds me of the definition of insanity – doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
I’ve never heard of anything other than “per claim” deductibles on homeowners policies. My question is, do they know something that we don’t? Is there really a fear that we may have another hurricane seaaon like this again, and do we really need to change legislation to create a single season deductible, or should we leave well enough alone. Insurance companies are by design “FOR PROFIT”, they will have to raise rates substantially to justify a single season deductible if the thought is that we will have multiple storms hit again, and if that is not the concern, why change it. I understand it was very hard on people to have mutiple deductibles on repeat storms, but they have no clue how expensive the coverage will be if they use the 2004 hurricane season as the model for rate changes. It has NEVER happened before and I am willing to take the chance. Now here is an idea, make it an option instead of a requirement, charge an additional premium to elect a single deductible, but still allow the current plan with a per claim basis. Lets see how willing consumers really are to PAY EXTRA for homeowners insurance to get the single deductible. I would venture to say that MOST insureds will elect to keep it the way it is and take the chance on multiple storms hitting again, and save hundreds of dollars a year on premiums. Will this create another E&O exposure for agents that automatically give the lower cost option in order to sell the policy, you bet it will, so they should require a signature on the application or supplemental app indicating the insured agrees to it.
I think the permission was for the separate hurricane deductible, and making it a 2%. I don’t think that was stadard prior to hurricane andrew.
Curtis, you indicated that people that “had not heard from an adjustor and had homes exposed to the elements(no roof or walls)” were the ones likely to complain about double deductibles. THEY WILL NOT HAVE TWO DEDUCTIBLES if they had not seen an adjustor between the two storms. NO companies applied 2 deductible if the adjustor did not see the property before the next storm, there is NO way for anyone to determine which storm caused what damage and the companies did not impose a second deductible. And the senario you painted would not have resulted in a second claim anyway. If there is no roof or no walls, it is called a total loss, no questions asked. There were obviously homes that had less damage than missing roofs or walls that could have sustained additional and different damage from a second storm. There is no historical evidence to indicate 2 deductibles should not apply if damage was from 2 events, but if it is not possible to draw the line on damages per event, an insured need only to say that they had no additional damage from the second storm and if no adjustor had seen the home, the same result occurs, one deductible for total damages. The people that are suffering are those that DID see an adjustor, and I see no reason not to impose the contractually agreed to second deductible. it may be painful but you get what you pay for. I believe that if they make it an OPTION, (instead of requirement) for insureds to select a single annual deductible, that 98% will not pay the extra money, but take the chance that it will be another 200 years before we have another year like this. It was 1960 when the last hurricane hit Lee & Charlotte counties (hurricane Donna) and by the way I’m not sure where the 5% ded for many of the devastated areas comes from. This is not accurate, as an agent in the hardest hit areas, most of the claims actually had $1000 hurricane deductibles or 2% of coverage “A”. Some insureds choose 5% to save money, but no carriers I am aware of required 5% unless the home was over $500,000. I can not speak for captives such as State Farm, Allstate etc.
The whole point to this mess is that there was a catastrophic event that affected millions of people and we can’t get life back to normal in a reasonable time period, having single deductible for the next time is NOT going to get homes fixed any faster, and no one should want an insurance company to be a savings account for deductibles. Rate will go up no matter what happens with deductibles because the companies must build up reserves to prepare for the next catastrophie, and like it or not insurance companies are FOR PROFIT.
the most outspoken of claimants in our state were those who had not heard from an adjuster and had homes exposed to the elements (no roof or walls)when the next storm came rumbling through. in this situation, should they really be on the hook for multiple deductibles when the loss could have been minimized had the carrier settled the first claim in time? i don’t think so. it is not as cut and dried as 2 different storms, 2 deductibles – when they happen that quickly in succession. the carrier shares in the loss, the area is typically in a federal state of emergency, so resources for getting homes repaired in time is severly limited. not to mention, many of the most devistated areas have a 5% Wind Ded. could you imagine paying the first $25,000 on repair on your $250,000 home if two storms strike back to back in the same week? again, goes back to probabilities; florida hasn’t seen a major hurricane since 1992 prior to the 2004 season, hence this was an anomamlity and rate pressure should not be affected by the single deductible law, if passed.
in response to living in “catastrophe-prone” areas such as “Florida” – the last hurricane to strike jacksonville, where i live, was in 1964, 9 years before i was born.
as far as i’m concerned, anyplace that that has had a catastophe since 1964 is more prone to them than here.
even parts of southwest florida aka punta gorda have not seen anything worthy of the “catastophe” label for more than half a century.