Not only adjusters but the CEO, Ed Rust, was in line to be indicted. I also say re-read and see if you denote sarcasm? Better yet, rocketman please let us know if there was sarcasm in your post.
I think State Farm needs to contact the people from Hurricane Ivan in Sept of 2004.Many of us have not received our just pay outs. Hurricane causes heavy rain Storm surge which is caused by winds and they just blew us off.
All you hear about this situation is that State Farm inappropriately denied these \”slab\” claims. You don\’t hear about the number or value of claims that were paid immediately, appropriately, professionally. You don\’t hear about the CAT response teams being onsight quicker than the Federal Gov\’t. Or that most other insurers have pulled out of the area already. As is normally the case with US media appetites, the only story with legs was the negative one. The truth is that through ISO policy language the denials were defensible, although not empathetic. The real danger is that now with these claims being paid, all policy language is in jeopardy and subject to very public interpretation, insurance for coastal properties will be unavailable or astronomically prices & the already tenuous home mortgage business is in trouble. No, I\’m not a State Farm employee. Just an educated consumer and adjuster reading more than just the major news outlet headlines.
If they are that good, then why intentionally deny claims that other companies were paying, with similar poliyc language. State Farm lives in their own world.
This whole coastal claim confusion seems unnecessary. Why don\’t the insurers simply issue \”all risk\” policies covering, wind, flooding, storm surge etc. Certainly their actuaries could promulgate adequate rates for the exposure and let the market decide if such risks should be insured
because boon….the insurance companies dont want to insure for hurricanes they only want part of the risk.
and as for insurers fleeing the state of mississippi.. thats more industry bs. insurance is available and if your are willing to take some of the risk thru deductibles pretty damn affordable.
is one of two things; either unaffordable at the true actuarial rate or a bigtime loser and requiring it to be subsidized. Thinl about it, the risl of flood in a flood zone is near or equal to 100%. Having worked flood cliams, it is not uncommon for the homeowner to be on their fifth or sixth claim for flooding.
I realize you are a very busy man. However, that is not any reason for you to push me off to your LaRaza public affairs person, Irma Bantista, for an answer to my concerns about State Farm’s relationship to LaRaza. The letter was addressed to you.
Since State Farm, under your direction, decided not to help our citizens in Mississippi and the Gulf Coast, I believe you should not be giving policyholder money to LaRaza or any other organization including politicians or their PACs. Our policyholders (mutual company, remember) would be better served by using our premium monies exclusively for our mutual members (policyholders). Again, I object to State Farm contributing money to LaRaza for any reason.
For your information, there is a concerted effort by American citizens like me to boycott State Farm by cancelling our policies in protest to your determined support of anti-American organizations like LaRaza.
As a current member and owner of State Farm, I demand two things:
1. Stop all contributions to all outside organizations and entities to include LaRaza and PACs.
2. Send all policyholders a list of the organizations that State Farm contributes policyholder’s money to in order for us to see some transparency in State Farm’s handling of our premium monies.
Furthermore, I do not expect you to push this letter off to any of your spinmeisters for a reply. I expect that you would be man enough to answer this letter.
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.
GLENN:
Not only adjusters but the CEO, Ed Rust, was in line to be indicted. I also say re-read and see if you denote sarcasm? Better yet, rocketman please let us know if there was sarcasm in your post.
I am feeling that there must have been some sarcasm…If not, then Rocketman is no rocket scientist.
I think State Farm needs to contact the people from Hurricane Ivan in Sept of 2004.Many of us have not received our just pay outs. Hurricane causes heavy rain Storm surge which is caused by winds and they just blew us off.
ED
Completely different argument Ed.
All you hear about this situation is that State Farm inappropriately denied these \”slab\” claims. You don\’t hear about the number or value of claims that were paid immediately, appropriately, professionally. You don\’t hear about the CAT response teams being onsight quicker than the Federal Gov\’t. Or that most other insurers have pulled out of the area already. As is normally the case with US media appetites, the only story with legs was the negative one. The truth is that through ISO policy language the denials were defensible, although not empathetic. The real danger is that now with these claims being paid, all policy language is in jeopardy and subject to very public interpretation, insurance for coastal properties will be unavailable or astronomically prices & the already tenuous home mortgage business is in trouble. No, I\’m not a State Farm employee. Just an educated consumer and adjuster reading more than just the major news outlet headlines.
If they are that good, then why intentionally deny claims that other companies were paying, with similar poliyc language. State Farm lives in their own world.
This whole coastal claim confusion seems unnecessary. Why don\’t the insurers simply issue \”all risk\” policies covering, wind, flooding, storm surge etc. Certainly their actuaries could promulgate adequate rates for the exposure and let the market decide if such risks should be insured
because boon….the insurance companies dont want to insure for hurricanes they only want part of the risk.
and as for insurers fleeing the state of mississippi.. thats more industry bs. insurance is available and if your are willing to take some of the risk thru deductibles pretty damn affordable.
is one of two things; either unaffordable at the true actuarial rate or a bigtime loser and requiring it to be subsidized. Thinl about it, the risl of flood in a flood zone is near or equal to 100%. Having worked flood cliams, it is not uncommon for the homeowner to be on their fifth or sixth claim for flooding.
Mr. Ed
Rust,
I realize you are a very busy man. However, that is not any reason for you to push me off to your LaRaza public affairs person, Irma Bantista, for an answer to my concerns about State Farm’s relationship to LaRaza. The letter was addressed to you.
Since State Farm, under your direction, decided not to help our citizens in Mississippi and the Gulf Coast, I believe you should not be giving policyholder money to LaRaza or any other organization including politicians or their PACs. Our policyholders (mutual company, remember) would be better served by using our premium monies exclusively for our mutual members (policyholders). Again, I object to State Farm contributing money to LaRaza for any reason.
For your information, there is a concerted effort by American citizens like me to boycott State Farm by cancelling our policies in protest to your determined support of anti-American organizations like LaRaza.
As a current member and owner of State Farm, I demand two things:
1. Stop all contributions to all outside organizations and entities to include LaRaza and PACs.
2. Send all policyholders a list of the organizations that State Farm contributes policyholder’s money to in order for us to see some transparency in State Farm’s handling of our premium monies.
Furthermore, I do not expect you to push this letter off to any of your spinmeisters for a reply. I expect that you would be man enough to answer this letter.
(Time to stand!!! Thank you to the man that care