Tom, You are right Garamendi, likes to be in the news. Does he care about insurance policyholders? I seriously doult it. I have been on stages with several times, with Geradine Ferria and disabled childern. He always looks for the camera, when it leaves so does he and his and smile. The main reason we got him again is because of our last commissioner Quackinback. He was the new star of the Republican party, had to resign because of his unethical activities. Should have gone to jail, instead moved to Hawaii.
You are right we have some crazy national elected officials. Don’t think you want to get in a pissing match who has more jerks elected to national tickets.
Instead of bashing the intelligence of your own potential customers, my question to the industry is what is so threatening about the commonsense regulations proposed by the Commissioner that only require:
1) insurers do not cancel non-renew, deny, or charge more for coverage based on fully remedied losses;
2) inquiries regarding coverage for a condition that does not pose an increased risk of loss – such as an inquiry that one consumer stated that she made about a broken plate that was not even covered under her policy – will not be the basis for a nonrenewal, denial, cancellation, or premium increase.
3) insurers shall not rely solely on an insurance databases, such as CLUE, as the basis for a nonrenewal, denial, cancellation, or premium increase.
These principles, as embodied in the Commissioner’s emergency regulations, simply make clear an insurer’s obligations under California law that underwriting and eligibility guidelines may not be arbitrary or unfairly discriminatory. (Insurance Code §§ 1861.03 and 1861.05; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, § 2360.0, et seq.)
Why do insurers continue to ignore the problem of homeowners who find themselves cancelled or non-renewed by their insurance company after they make a single claim or simply inquire as to whether a particular problem is covered? Once dropped, many consumers find that they and their homes are blackballed from the insurance market altogether. As a result, the ability to get new coverage, sell a home or purchase a new one becomes very difficult, if not impossible.
As a consumer advocate, I receive complaints on a daily basis that homeowners’ insurers are basing adverse underwriting decisions solely on data that is reported to the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange (CLUE), without conducting any further inquiry to find out if the info. is even correct. Insurers are treating all claims reported to CLUE, even for problems that have been fully remedied or even inquiries, as a mark against homeowners to deny them coverage in the future.
Here are just a sampling of complaints from CA consumers:
**My brother, a first time buyer, wants to buy a house. Part of the requirements of the lender is to have homeowner insurance. So, he contacted
[Company A] to get the homeowner insurance. [Company A] denied Homeowner Insurance to him because, he currently lives with me in my house. [Company A] stated that I made a claim on my house for $400.00 and since he lives in my house he is not entitle to insurance coverage. My brother is not the owner of the house and he is just living with me. This sounds like a scam to me.
–A.E.B., East Bay, CA
**I’ve been an [Company B] customer for many, many years (both automobile and home owner’s insurance). Last year (January) I filed a claim because I had damage on my house due to a leaky roof (which I’ve subsequently repaired) and because I had a camera stolen in October (at my wedding, of all places!). Yesterday I receive a notice that my policy would not be renewed. I spoke with the agent, and he says that [Company B] will cancel anyone who has filed two claims in less than 3 years! I now have to try to get insurance by working with a broker. I feel this type of action is very threatening, as it seems to indicate that I must pay for insurance on my house, but if I actually use the service that I pay for, I get penalized. I can understand if I was abusing the system, but over the course of the years that I’ve paid premiums to [Company B], I believe these are the only claims that I’ve filed. My understanding is that this is happening all over California.
–Paul G.
**I’m certain there are many consumers like myself, who are not being allowed to purchase coverage from an industry which is allowed to “discriminate” against homeowners who have a right to purchase insurance. I am very frustrated as a result of [X Insurance Co.] which has provided auto and homeowners coverage for many years and now has given a mere 45 day notice that they are withdrawing from the Homeowners Insurance market.
Now I apply to [Y Insurance Co.] and they inform me that because I have a record for a theft claim for personal property in my auto (which strangely enough is covered not under auto policy but HO policy), [Y Insurance Co.] cannot accept the request for a HO coverage. I ask, what risk assessment is applied to protection of a Home being insured as a result for a theft of property in a vehicle while on vacation miles away! Everyone you talk with agrees, it makes no sense, yet the Insurance industry is allowed to damn the consumer!
. . .
I have till Dec 31, 2002 to replace coverage of the expiring policy with [X Insurance Co.]… and I am having difficulty finding a provider.. Perhaps with a 200/300% increase in premium…. is this what it will come down to? HELP!
This ultimately affects Selling and buying of homes as well as Mortgage approval if we let the Insurance industry kill the consumers because they basically are suffering from the economic downturn and equity losses in their investments. Hello! Aren’t we all?
–Peter I., Oceanside, CA
I am very unhappy about this Clue thing the insurance companies are doing. they had a mark against me on my home owners insurance because I called to see if I was covered for my fence coming down in a storm. I did not file a claim but they show a claim against my policy even though all I did was inquire if I was covered.
–Jack L., Orangevale, CA
As these complaints illustrate, cancellations and nonrenewals of homeowners’ insurance policies by CA insurers for even minor claims – and worse yet, for claims that are not even made by the person seeking homeowners’ insurance and/or that were unrelated to future risks of loss for the covered property are completely arbitrary and unfairly discriminatory. Is this what we think is capitalism at its best? Until the industry wakes up and understands why policyholders are so angry, CA citizens are going to continue to fight for reforms in the Legislature and at the ballot box.
LA Native, You speak the truth, the examples you listed are repeated over and over every day. We have had clients who can not sell because the new owner could not get insurance because the currant had a water claim listed with CLUE. When buying a new home clients are refused coverage because they had a water claim at their last home. Most of the time these are not “Mold Claims” but washer hose splitting, overflowing sink or windstorm damage. If the adjuster checks water loss, goodby insurance. It’s nothing more than cheap underwriting, taking the facts out of contest. Hope our commissioner really tries to do something, his past record for helping has not been good. Just look at what he did to the Workers Compensation market in CA. The only winners so far are the insurance companies that donated to his campaign.
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.
Tom, You are right Garamendi, likes to be in the news. Does he care about insurance policyholders? I seriously doult it. I have been on stages with several times, with Geradine Ferria and disabled childern. He always looks for the camera, when it leaves so does he and his and smile. The main reason we got him again is because of our last commissioner Quackinback. He was the new star of the Republican party, had to resign because of his unethical activities. Should have gone to jail, instead moved to Hawaii.
You are right we have some crazy national elected officials. Don’t think you want to get in a pissing match who has more jerks elected to national tickets.
Instead of bashing the intelligence of your own potential customers, my question to the industry is what is so threatening about the commonsense regulations proposed by the Commissioner that only require:
1) insurers do not cancel non-renew, deny, or charge more for coverage based on fully remedied losses;
2) inquiries regarding coverage for a condition that does not pose an increased risk of loss – such as an inquiry that one consumer stated that she made about a broken plate that was not even covered under her policy – will not be the basis for a nonrenewal, denial, cancellation, or premium increase.
3) insurers shall not rely solely on an insurance databases, such as CLUE, as the basis for a nonrenewal, denial, cancellation, or premium increase.
These principles, as embodied in the Commissioner’s emergency regulations, simply make clear an insurer’s obligations under California law that underwriting and eligibility guidelines may not be arbitrary or unfairly discriminatory. (Insurance Code §§ 1861.03 and 1861.05; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 10, § 2360.0, et seq.)
Why do insurers continue to ignore the problem of homeowners who find themselves cancelled or non-renewed by their insurance company after they make a single claim or simply inquire as to whether a particular problem is covered? Once dropped, many consumers find that they and their homes are blackballed from the insurance market altogether. As a result, the ability to get new coverage, sell a home or purchase a new one becomes very difficult, if not impossible.
As a consumer advocate, I receive complaints on a daily basis that homeowners’ insurers are basing adverse underwriting decisions solely on data that is reported to the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange (CLUE), without conducting any further inquiry to find out if the info. is even correct. Insurers are treating all claims reported to CLUE, even for problems that have been fully remedied or even inquiries, as a mark against homeowners to deny them coverage in the future.
Here are just a sampling of complaints from CA consumers:
**My brother, a first time buyer, wants to buy a house. Part of the requirements of the lender is to have homeowner insurance. So, he contacted
[Company A] to get the homeowner insurance. [Company A] denied Homeowner Insurance to him because, he currently lives with me in my house. [Company A] stated that I made a claim on my house for $400.00 and since he lives in my house he is not entitle to insurance coverage. My brother is not the owner of the house and he is just living with me. This sounds like a scam to me.
–A.E.B., East Bay, CA
**I’ve been an [Company B] customer for many, many years (both automobile and home owner’s insurance). Last year (January) I filed a claim because I had damage on my house due to a leaky roof (which I’ve subsequently repaired) and because I had a camera stolen in October (at my wedding, of all places!). Yesterday I receive a notice that my policy would not be renewed. I spoke with the agent, and he says that [Company B] will cancel anyone who has filed two claims in less than 3 years! I now have to try to get insurance by working with a broker. I feel this type of action is very threatening, as it seems to indicate that I must pay for insurance on my house, but if I actually use the service that I pay for, I get penalized. I can understand if I was abusing the system, but over the course of the years that I’ve paid premiums to [Company B], I believe these are the only claims that I’ve filed. My understanding is that this is happening all over California.
–Paul G.
**I’m certain there are many consumers like myself, who are not being allowed to purchase coverage from an industry which is allowed to “discriminate” against homeowners who have a right to purchase insurance. I am very frustrated as a result of [X Insurance Co.] which has provided auto and homeowners coverage for many years and now has given a mere 45 day notice that they are withdrawing from the Homeowners Insurance market.
Now I apply to [Y Insurance Co.] and they inform me that because I have a record for a theft claim for personal property in my auto (which strangely enough is covered not under auto policy but HO policy), [Y Insurance Co.] cannot accept the request for a HO coverage. I ask, what risk assessment is applied to protection of a Home being insured as a result for a theft of property in a vehicle while on vacation miles away! Everyone you talk with agrees, it makes no sense, yet the Insurance industry is allowed to damn the consumer!
. . .
I have till Dec 31, 2002 to replace coverage of the expiring policy with [X Insurance Co.]… and I am having difficulty finding a provider.. Perhaps with a 200/300% increase in premium…. is this what it will come down to? HELP!
This ultimately affects Selling and buying of homes as well as Mortgage approval if we let the Insurance industry kill the consumers because they basically are suffering from the economic downturn and equity losses in their investments. Hello! Aren’t we all?
–Peter I., Oceanside, CA
I am very unhappy about this Clue thing the insurance companies are doing. they had a mark against me on my home owners insurance because I called to see if I was covered for my fence coming down in a storm. I did not file a claim but they show a claim against my policy even though all I did was inquire if I was covered.
–Jack L., Orangevale, CA
As these complaints illustrate, cancellations and nonrenewals of homeowners’ insurance policies by CA insurers for even minor claims – and worse yet, for claims that are not even made by the person seeking homeowners’ insurance and/or that were unrelated to future risks of loss for the covered property are completely arbitrary and unfairly discriminatory. Is this what we think is capitalism at its best? Until the industry wakes up and understands why policyholders are so angry, CA citizens are going to continue to fight for reforms in the Legislature and at the ballot box.
LA Native, You speak the truth, the examples you listed are repeated over and over every day. We have had clients who can not sell because the new owner could not get insurance because the currant had a water claim listed with CLUE. When buying a new home clients are refused coverage because they had a water claim at their last home. Most of the time these are not “Mold Claims” but washer hose splitting, overflowing sink or windstorm damage. If the adjuster checks water loss, goodby insurance. It’s nothing more than cheap underwriting, taking the facts out of contest. Hope our commissioner really tries to do something, his past record for helping has not been good. Just look at what he did to the Workers Compensation market in CA. The only winners so far are the insurance companies that donated to his campaign.
I am sure all those credit checks from the insurance companies, for no claims in the past 5 to 10 years, are in the mail.