surcharging 2nd homes or vaction homes (especially vaction homes) is insane. in most cases of vaction homes, these homes are in much better condition than most homes that are the primary homes. what the industry needs to do is INSPECT every risk and determine what the acutal replacement cost is for that risk. too many of the properties that i have inspected this year have been under-insured by at least 30 – 35%. TALK ABOUT LOSS OF PREMIUM! and these have replacement cost on them.
So Mr. Garcia is proposing to hold down Citizens assessments through the 25 percent surcharge on homes that are not the primary residences of their owners. What about residences that once belonged to parents and have now been passed on to their children who may not live there? This is my problem. My parents home in the Keys now belongs to me but I live in Atlanta. Are residential properties \”grandfathered\” to family members not living in the property going to be slammed with the 25% increase? That\’s pathetic. Not everyone residential owner in coastal areas are rich, including me. You\’re \”cleansing\” the Florida Keys of every lower and middle class families. How fair is that?
It\’s easy
change building codes now
less windows more walls
2 – 3 story houses with first floor
able to take flood or water driver rain
no screen that will become weapons
you have to sign at time of closure
that if you are on or near Ocean
\”I can lose everything\”
\” I know my insurance is expensive…
you get the Idea
but when people say that a $1,000,000
house has to be cover by the Governments
then ……………..
Insurance premiums must be initially based upon risk factors, not ability to pay.
However, if the insured lives in a high (hurricane) risk area, is wiped out, and insists upon rebuilding in the same or similar location, everything recommends a stupidity-surcharge of thousands of dollars per year. If that surcharges falls disproportionately upon vacationers and second-home owners, so be it. Decisions have consequences.
All of that said, perhaps were Citizens to have been conceptualized, staffed, and operated like a real insurance company, rather than as a make-work project or crony-employment agency, things would not have reached this stage.
Mr Geller\’s comments are ridiculous – he obviously thinks he can insure the land under these expensive homes – if a hurricane hits a coastal county, and you happen to have a home there, you may or may not have land left to rebuild your million dollar home – I don\’t think you can insure the value of the land – duh!
What is the increased risk in a seasonal home in regards to wind damage, NONE.
They are only concerned about wind damage, why would you punish a person that has a second or seasonalhome in Florida, just because you think that makes them rich? The rates must be actuarialy sound and occupancy has nothing to do with wind losses. I happen to own 3 homes in my name, I live in one, my mother in law lives in one and does not pay rent, and the third one is occupies by a dear friend that is 74 years old and had to sell the house to me because she could not afford to live there and pay the insurance and health premiums. I make no money on this house and it costs me about $500 a month to have her live there, I will make nothing until she dies and I can then sell the house. Basically it is a reverse mortgage. Why exactly should I have to pay 25% more to insure these home just because I do not live in them? Does this mean that ALL rental properties will go up 25%? This is not the fix to the problem. If my carriers drop my policies, I may likely not insure more than liability due to cost. If I lose the house that will be one way to get rid of the mother in law. Actually that means she will probably move in with me, OH GOD.
Not sure what data you are looking at but thats not what the results show for 6 carriers I did claims for. Most seasonal homes or units where in better shape than occupied homes, true some did have damage do to no shutters, but far more seasonal homes had the shutters than those that were occupied year round. Most of the year round residents used plywood which does not foot the bill for protection in 140 mph wind. Seasonal homes are typical monitored by someone also.
During the hurricane, many non owner-occupied homes had claims that owner-occupied ones didn\’t. Tenants and property managers typically don\’t board up windows to prevent the them from blowing out. There are plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that rental properties are riskier.
Most carriers will NOT write a DP3 for an owner occupied home, even Citizens will not insure a DP3 for owner occupied if the value is over $60,000. Go figure. This could be somewhat of an alternative but the guidekines would have to change.
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.
surcharging 2nd homes or vaction homes (especially vaction homes) is insane. in most cases of vaction homes, these homes are in much better condition than most homes that are the primary homes. what the industry needs to do is INSPECT every risk and determine what the acutal replacement cost is for that risk. too many of the properties that i have inspected this year have been under-insured by at least 30 – 35%. TALK ABOUT LOSS OF PREMIUM! and these have replacement cost on them.
So Mr. Garcia is proposing to hold down Citizens assessments through the 25 percent surcharge on homes that are not the primary residences of their owners. What about residences that once belonged to parents and have now been passed on to their children who may not live there? This is my problem. My parents home in the Keys now belongs to me but I live in Atlanta. Are residential properties \”grandfathered\” to family members not living in the property going to be slammed with the 25% increase? That\’s pathetic. Not everyone residential owner in coastal areas are rich, including me. You\’re \”cleansing\” the Florida Keys of every lower and middle class families. How fair is that?
It\’s easy
change building codes now
less windows more walls
2 – 3 story houses with first floor
able to take flood or water driver rain
no screen that will become weapons
you have to sign at time of closure
that if you are on or near Ocean
\”I can lose everything\”
\” I know my insurance is expensive…
you get the Idea
but when people say that a $1,000,000
house has to be cover by the Governments
then ……………..
Insurance premiums must be initially based upon risk factors, not ability to pay.
However, if the insured lives in a high (hurricane) risk area, is wiped out, and insists upon rebuilding in the same or similar location, everything recommends a stupidity-surcharge of thousands of dollars per year. If that surcharges falls disproportionately upon vacationers and second-home owners, so be it. Decisions have consequences.
All of that said, perhaps were Citizens to have been conceptualized, staffed, and operated like a real insurance company, rather than as a make-work project or crony-employment agency, things would not have reached this stage.
Mr Geller\’s comments are ridiculous – he obviously thinks he can insure the land under these expensive homes – if a hurricane hits a coastal county, and you happen to have a home there, you may or may not have land left to rebuild your million dollar home – I don\’t think you can insure the value of the land – duh!
What is the increased risk in a seasonal home in regards to wind damage, NONE.
They are only concerned about wind damage, why would you punish a person that has a second or seasonalhome in Florida, just because you think that makes them rich? The rates must be actuarialy sound and occupancy has nothing to do with wind losses. I happen to own 3 homes in my name, I live in one, my mother in law lives in one and does not pay rent, and the third one is occupies by a dear friend that is 74 years old and had to sell the house to me because she could not afford to live there and pay the insurance and health premiums. I make no money on this house and it costs me about $500 a month to have her live there, I will make nothing until she dies and I can then sell the house. Basically it is a reverse mortgage. Why exactly should I have to pay 25% more to insure these home just because I do not live in them? Does this mean that ALL rental properties will go up 25%? This is not the fix to the problem. If my carriers drop my policies, I may likely not insure more than liability due to cost. If I lose the house that will be one way to get rid of the mother in law. Actually that means she will probably move in with me, OH GOD.
Not sure what data you are looking at but thats not what the results show for 6 carriers I did claims for. Most seasonal homes or units where in better shape than occupied homes, true some did have damage do to no shutters, but far more seasonal homes had the shutters than those that were occupied year round. Most of the year round residents used plywood which does not foot the bill for protection in 140 mph wind. Seasonal homes are typical monitored by someone also.
During the hurricane, many non owner-occupied homes had claims that owner-occupied ones didn\’t. Tenants and property managers typically don\’t board up windows to prevent the them from blowing out. There are plenty of empirical evidence to suggest that rental properties are riskier.
Is that why carrier prefer to write DP3s rather than HO3s?
Most carriers will NOT write a DP3 for an owner occupied home, even Citizens will not insure a DP3 for owner occupied if the value is over $60,000. Go figure. This could be somewhat of an alternative but the guidekines would have to change.