| Author |
Message |
    
Trent_Daddy
Citizen
Username: Tcedwards
Post Number: 199
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 9:14 am: | 
|
Hello,
With the first year anniversary of Katrina there is a lot of discussion about home insurance in the media (So it started me thinking). It would seem that insurance companies are electing to drop coverage or dramatically increase premium on homeowners in the weather dynamic regions (beach front or there aboutz). What gets me is that insurance cover is mandated by mortgage companies for coverage/homeownership. I think the arcade game is on tilt on this subject.
- Why would an insurance company want to insure in such an area anyway? Is there some historically stupid reason other than a demand to build and economic growth?
- Why would the system allow for easy cancellation by the insurance companies once committed? Is this a legal system opportunity event?
Now about us:
- Are you happy with what is covered in your policy and do you care?
- What company is the best in fairness of policy writing and obligation to settle in areas not in weather dynamic regions?
- Would it piss you off to attempt to collect after paying the premium for years only to find the insurance company comes up with a technicality as to why you should NOT be paid?
- If there is a large event that forces the insurance company to pay out to hundreds of families. Further, suppose they refused to pay as it would affect their profits. In this situation what exactly is the value of coverage to you the owner? In other words why did you pay into the plan?
If insurance profit is about the probability of a claim will not come in, then is it your problem when the insurance fails to properly plan their risk?
With Katrina I hear folks were NOT in good hands with “All State”.
|
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 8176
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 9:46 am: |
|
Mortgage companies insist on homeowners insurance to protect their investment. If enough independent insurance companies are unwilling to insure a property because of flooding or other considerations, expect the mortgage companies to step in with their own insurance packages which could be substantially more expensive than that offered now since they will in essence become self-insurers of what may become their own property. |
Ceidefields
Citizen
Username: Ceidefields
Post Number: 55
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 11:47 am: |
|
Trent
The only reason I can think of that insurance companies are willing to insurance in flood/disaster prone areas is that there's still money to be made in those neighborhoods. They build the possibility of huge payout into their actuarial tables for the nation as a whole, and yes, they do lose when they have to payout, but trust me, they're still making a huge amount of money.
However in my experience, once an insurance company has to make a major payment under a homeowner's policy, they will cancel the policy when it comes up for renewal. We had a major house fire five years ago and received prompt and full payment from our policy (thank God). They then turned around and cancelled first chance they got - and what are the chances of us having another major disaster? Probably quite slim, but they don't want to deal with it. So I guess it is a legal system opportunity event.
We were insured under Prudential at the time of our fire and I have to say dealing with them was very straightforward - nothing but good things to say about the whole process.
It would annoy me to try to claim and then be told that they weren't going to pay under a technicality, but then again I've always had the understanding that Acts of God are not covered - hurricanes, earthquakes, war etc.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12497
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Homeowners policies cover some acts of God, such as windstorms, tornados and wind damage from hurricanes. Other major catastrophes such as earthquake and flood aren't covered because the frequency and severity of these events are almost impossible to predict. In most states both of these exposures can be covered through various pools, such as the government backed Federal Flood Insurance program. These coverages are quite expensive mostly because only those people who are really exposed to loss from these causes buy the coverage, and not even then in many cases. Homeowners in California tend not to buy earthquake coverage, prefering to gamble that a loss will be less than the deductible and coinsurance provisions.
I am never going to underestimate the intelligence of insurance companies. However, as far as homeowners coverage is concerned you are more likely to be non-renewed because of a series of small losses than one large fire, assuming that the cause of the fire was corrected during rebuilding.
There is an old joke about insurance policies, "the big print gives you coverage and the small print takes it away". However, most of the exclusions in the property policies are to avoid catastrophic, unforseen and uncharged for loss scenarios.
|
Michael K. McKell
Citizen
Username: Mckellconst
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Get the Chubb master piece policy. It is expensive as I pay $1,900.00 a year with a $1,000.00 deductible but beleive me it is worth it! It is the very best policy on the market. |
Trent_Daddy
Citizen
Username: Tcedwards
Post Number: 200
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Chubb Master policy, Michael K. McKell? |
Michael K. McKell
Citizen
Username: Mckellconst
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 11:45 pm: |
|
Ask your agent if they have Chubb as a carrier. If so ask them to quote the master piece policy. If you need an agent who does let me know. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page