It is indeed the homeowners responsibility to insure the proper value of a home, BUT the agent or broker has an obligation to explain what the amount is, how to calculate it, and sign a statement proving that he/she made a conscious choice to insure for less than the replacement cost. After a major loss is the wrong time to get educated about co-insurance and replacement value.
It should shame anyone who votes democrat when bozos like Garamendi are elected for office. Feinstein, Boxer the State Senate and Assembly are filled with examples of hacks and goof balls who would be anonymous and unemployed if they weren’t democrats. I mean look at Kevin Shelley and Phil Angiledes. Millions of people vote these jokers in every year because they are in the party of the donkey.
I think that John and Ken got it right…the political human sacrifice and Gumbys recall will be what really changes politics in California. I say we try this in ’06 as well. Find a commisioner who will actually do some good
Rob is right, however insureds will scream bloody murder if their homeowners premium goes up by $50 bucks, and they’ll argue with the agent and think the agent is just out for more commission. However as soon as there’s a loss they’re crying to the media that the big bad insurance company is being mean to them, and they fail to mention that they flatly refused the coverage they needed when it was offered. Most of society seems to think insurance is a social service and they’re entitled to be repaired without having to pay for it.
The ins geek is right. It will have to become where the consumer has to sign a waiver that acknowledges he was offered more coverage and refused it because he did not want to pay $50 more premium. Consumers need to grow up and get educated.
AS AN OLD RETIRED INS. ADJUSTER FROM ANOTHER STATE, I WAS CUREOUS ABOUT VALUE POLICY LAW IN CALIFORNIA?
ALL I COULD FIND WAS A LOT OF ABUSE IN REFERENCE TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
WHY FORGET THE AGENT? HE MAKES THE MONEY BUT IF HE WOULD SPEND A LITTLE TIME EVALUATING VALUE, ADJUSTERS WOULD HAVE A LOT LESS HEART ACHE, WORRY, AND HAVING TO LISTEN TO ALL THOSE BAD WORDS DESCRIBING THEIR HISTORY. HAVEN, ONE YET THAT I DID NOT REALIZE WAS A BAD WORD, BUT HAVE NOT KNOWN WAS SOMETHING BD.
EVERY ONE SEEMS TO FORGET THE AGENT ONLY MAKES 15 TO 20%. CO INSURANCE AND REPLACEMENT COST WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.
GOOD LUCK TO THE ADJUSTERS IN REFERENCE TO THE CURRENT FIRES.
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.
It is indeed the homeowners responsibility to insure the proper value of a home, BUT the agent or broker has an obligation to explain what the amount is, how to calculate it, and sign a statement proving that he/she made a conscious choice to insure for less than the replacement cost. After a major loss is the wrong time to get educated about co-insurance and replacement value.
It should shame anyone who votes democrat when bozos like Garamendi are elected for office. Feinstein, Boxer the State Senate and Assembly are filled with examples of hacks and goof balls who would be anonymous and unemployed if they weren’t democrats. I mean look at Kevin Shelley and Phil Angiledes. Millions of people vote these jokers in every year because they are in the party of the donkey.
I think that John and Ken got it right…the political human sacrifice and Gumbys recall will be what really changes politics in California. I say we try this in ’06 as well. Find a commisioner who will actually do some good
Rob is right, however insureds will scream bloody murder if their homeowners premium goes up by $50 bucks, and they’ll argue with the agent and think the agent is just out for more commission. However as soon as there’s a loss they’re crying to the media that the big bad insurance company is being mean to them, and they fail to mention that they flatly refused the coverage they needed when it was offered. Most of society seems to think insurance is a social service and they’re entitled to be repaired without having to pay for it.
The ins geek is right. It will have to become where the consumer has to sign a waiver that acknowledges he was offered more coverage and refused it because he did not want to pay $50 more premium. Consumers need to grow up and get educated.
Time to get out of insurance and go into politics, or get a state job..
d
AS AN OLD RETIRED INS. ADJUSTER FROM ANOTHER STATE, I WAS CUREOUS ABOUT VALUE POLICY LAW IN CALIFORNIA?
ALL I COULD FIND WAS A LOT OF ABUSE IN REFERENCE TO THE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER.
WHY FORGET THE AGENT? HE MAKES THE MONEY BUT IF HE WOULD SPEND A LITTLE TIME EVALUATING VALUE, ADJUSTERS WOULD HAVE A LOT LESS HEART ACHE, WORRY, AND HAVING TO LISTEN TO ALL THOSE BAD WORDS DESCRIBING THEIR HISTORY. HAVEN, ONE YET THAT I DID NOT REALIZE WAS A BAD WORD, BUT HAVE NOT KNOWN WAS SOMETHING BD.
EVERY ONE SEEMS TO FORGET THE AGENT ONLY MAKES 15 TO 20%. CO INSURANCE AND REPLACEMENT COST WOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE.
GOOD LUCK TO THE ADJUSTERS IN REFERENCE TO THE CURRENT FIRES.
BEEN THERE!!!!
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right.