As an agent that is not involved in the fraudulent activities mentioned, I suppose I could be offended also. But I am not offended because I have seen the facts clearly demonstrated by the bogus mit forms that customers have brought in. If you are not involved in the fraud you need not be offended by this story, I’m not. But you should be angry that this is going on and it is not at some small level, it is big. It was stated that these consumers have been over charged for years, maybe they should have had the inspection done years ago. It seems that some people think that just because these discounts are available that everyone should qualify. What homes were damaged in 2004 and 2005?, do they qualify for these mit discounts? The program was designed to have the older homes brought up to code to reduce the cahnce of wind damage. Plain and simple the percentages for these discounts are not justifiable by anyone. I am not suggesting that SOME people have not improved their homes but far fewer have spent money upgrading than the number that got discounts. More people need to improve their homes against wind damage and the discount needs to be modified. The insurance industry is not going to pay for people to have shutters. Especially for those that don’t use them. The fraud is out there and it is costing everyone money, dont’ deny it and don’t be offended if you are not involved.
Does anyone think that fruad is not happening? This article did not paint with a broad brush, it exposed the problem that we ALL knew was there and lays it squarely on the DOI to fix. Will Kevin have the balls to address it and admit it is not working the way it was intended?
There have been for years now, homes in which automatically qualify for discounts based on their original construction. Those homes in which as the agent audited their respective files, decided to process the mitigation features. The bottom line is time is money, but unless it is yours…there isn’t much sense of urgency.
Homes that were damaged, did have some of the retrofits accomplishe, ie., new roofs for instance. Where the roofer hasn’t been able to forward a Wind Mit unless he was a GC as well. Considering the roof installation date and geometry is the largest percentage of discount, let’s just say that the insurance industry only “complied” with what the OIR had stipulated regarding informing policy holders. As you well know, most insured don’t read their policy because it comperable to reading Chinese.
What should happen is a law requiring a Wind Mit on every wind stormd policy, that way EVERYONE is on the same page.
No where in the article did FAIA say anything other than this was happening at all levels. No where did they state this was limited in any way which leads one to believe they did make this too broad. I am upset that this article suggests everyone is involved when that is not anywhere near to the truth. They also state people get discounts without having to do anything to their home like that was wrong. Many, many homes had hurricane straps and clips that they were never credited for until the got a wind mitigation inspection. They did not have to do anything to their home the features were already there. How about an article about all the homes built in the 1980’s through the year 2000 that have hurricane clips, straps, hip roof shapes, etc. that never got any discount until the State created the wind mitigation discounts. How about a story about all the ethical agents, companies, insureds who complied with the rules. I am disappointed in the way this story was written and for the lack of any other side of the story from FAIA who we pay dues to as a member. If you are going to discuss an issue then talk about both sides but of course then you have to justify companies not giving any discounts for hurricane features before wind mitigation. It was not a failure of an agent to get those discounts it was a failure by companies to even offer them before the inspections were even offered and discounts mandated. The industry wanted homes strengthened and now that they are and they see many homes already with mitigating features they want to back off discounting for doing what they suggested to begin with.
We just discovered that we have been extremely overcharged for the past three years due to an error on an inspection we had paid $ 150.00 for. We questioned State Farm why our premium discount was so low for our new roof and they really did not have an answer. The inspector incorrectly said our roof trusses were “toenailed” instead of what we have which is single wraps. We never received a copy of the ispection until now since we were looking for ins quotes due to State Farm increasing our 2010 homeowners by $1200. They could not find a way to help us decrease this renewal premium until I asked for a copy of the inspection.State Farm reccommends this inspection company. They will not make any refunds from this problem.
They are known for not filling out the form correctly. In fact, they along with another WCE (approved vendor for the My Safe Florida Home Program) were audited by the state and found countless errors and were still awarded independent contracts from the state and other carriers. They are in the pocket of the insurance carriers.
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.
As an agent that is not involved in the fraudulent activities mentioned, I suppose I could be offended also. But I am not offended because I have seen the facts clearly demonstrated by the bogus mit forms that customers have brought in. If you are not involved in the fraud you need not be offended by this story, I’m not. But you should be angry that this is going on and it is not at some small level, it is big. It was stated that these consumers have been over charged for years, maybe they should have had the inspection done years ago. It seems that some people think that just because these discounts are available that everyone should qualify. What homes were damaged in 2004 and 2005?, do they qualify for these mit discounts? The program was designed to have the older homes brought up to code to reduce the cahnce of wind damage. Plain and simple the percentages for these discounts are not justifiable by anyone. I am not suggesting that SOME people have not improved their homes but far fewer have spent money upgrading than the number that got discounts. More people need to improve their homes against wind damage and the discount needs to be modified. The insurance industry is not going to pay for people to have shutters. Especially for those that don’t use them. The fraud is out there and it is costing everyone money, dont’ deny it and don’t be offended if you are not involved.
Does anyone think that fruad is not happening? This article did not paint with a broad brush, it exposed the problem that we ALL knew was there and lays it squarely on the DOI to fix. Will Kevin have the balls to address it and admit it is not working the way it was intended?
What everyone needs is an even playing field.
There have been for years now, homes in which automatically qualify for discounts based on their original construction. Those homes in which as the agent audited their respective files, decided to process the mitigation features. The bottom line is time is money, but unless it is yours…there isn’t much sense of urgency.
Homes that were damaged, did have some of the retrofits accomplishe, ie., new roofs for instance. Where the roofer hasn’t been able to forward a Wind Mit unless he was a GC as well. Considering the roof installation date and geometry is the largest percentage of discount, let’s just say that the insurance industry only “complied” with what the OIR had stipulated regarding informing policy holders. As you well know, most insured don’t read their policy because it comperable to reading Chinese.
What should happen is a law requiring a Wind Mit on every wind stormd policy, that way EVERYONE is on the same page.
ff
No where in the article did FAIA say anything other than this was happening at all levels. No where did they state this was limited in any way which leads one to believe they did make this too broad. I am upset that this article suggests everyone is involved when that is not anywhere near to the truth. They also state people get discounts without having to do anything to their home like that was wrong. Many, many homes had hurricane straps and clips that they were never credited for until the got a wind mitigation inspection. They did not have to do anything to their home the features were already there. How about an article about all the homes built in the 1980’s through the year 2000 that have hurricane clips, straps, hip roof shapes, etc. that never got any discount until the State created the wind mitigation discounts. How about a story about all the ethical agents, companies, insureds who complied with the rules. I am disappointed in the way this story was written and for the lack of any other side of the story from FAIA who we pay dues to as a member. If you are going to discuss an issue then talk about both sides but of course then you have to justify companies not giving any discounts for hurricane features before wind mitigation. It was not a failure of an agent to get those discounts it was a failure by companies to even offer them before the inspections were even offered and discounts mandated. The industry wanted homes strengthened and now that they are and they see many homes already with mitigating features they want to back off discounting for doing what they suggested to begin with.
We just discovered that we have been extremely overcharged for the past three years due to an error on an inspection we had paid $ 150.00 for. We questioned State Farm why our premium discount was so low for our new roof and they really did not have an answer. The inspector incorrectly said our roof trusses were “toenailed” instead of what we have which is single wraps. We never received a copy of the ispection until now since we were looking for ins quotes due to State Farm increasing our 2010 homeowners by $1200. They could not find a way to help us decrease this renewal premium until I asked for a copy of the inspection.State Farm reccommends this inspection company. They will not make any refunds from this problem.
Let me guess…the inspection company was Don Meyler
Yes, it was Don Meyler!! Did you have a similar experience?
They are known for not filling out the form correctly. In fact, they along with another WCE (approved vendor for the My Safe Florida Home Program) were audited by the state and found countless errors and were still awarded independent contracts from the state and other carriers. They are in the pocket of the insurance carriers.