Connecticut Asks Insurers to Waive Storm Deductibles for Irene Damages

September 6, 2011

  • September 6, 2011 at 10:04 am
    Curious says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 24
    Thumb down 0

    The new vanishing deductible?

  • September 6, 2011 at 10:17 am
    UCT says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 61
    Thumb down 0

    I believe this is insane. If deductibles are waived, what is the purpose of having them? Next time a hurricane blows through, everyone will expect the big bad insurance company to waive deductibles again.

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm
    Jim Keating says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 32
    Thumb down 9

    Connecticut’s governor is a socialist masquerading as a democrat. When you elect socialist’s, you get socialism.

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    Company Gal says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 39
    Thumb down 0

    OH MY – Does the Governor realize what this could do to future capacity? What markets will be willing to write the exposure if they cant depend on their forms?

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:35 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 10

    This is just a P.R move by the companies. They never could enforce the hurricane deductible anyway, since a “hurricane” never hit CT anyway, it was a tropical storm.

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:39 pm
    Confused says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 2

    Why did the Connecticut Insurance Department approve special deductibles for tropical storms? Tropical storms are not hurricanes and are therefore not special events.

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm
    jtownagent says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 34
    Thumb down 0

    Sets an interesting precedent. Now imagine the informed consumer that searched for a carrier that did not impose a hurricane deductible or had a lwoer percentage dedcutible but at a higher price. Will the insurance commissioner refund the “excess premium” paid for the “superior coverage”?

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:41 pm
    Wayne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 4

    The carriers agreeing to waive the deductible know they better or the politicians will do more grandstanding.

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm
    Wayne 2 says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 36
    Thumb down 0

    I’ll take the largest deductible offered if this is how it works! Save money all year and not have to pay a dime when a hurricane knocks the house down. Fantastic! Will Florida companies do this too? Sarcasm!

    • September 6, 2011 at 2:24 pm
      Longtime Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 23
      Thumb down 2

      If I lived in Connecticut, I would take the largest deductible for Wind I could get because I know that these deductibles would be waived in the event of a storm. What good are insurance contracts if some liberal politician tries to go around them by waiving the deductible? The short answer is, not much.

  • September 6, 2011 at 1:46 pm
    Buffalo Bill says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 25
    Thumb down 0

    Screw contracts, convention, industry standards and all that, what can make me look good as a politician–that’s what is important! Sadly, it is just another way pols and plaintiffs attys try to demonize insurers as the traditional bad guy. Of course, giving away someone else’s money is a time honored political tradition raised to a high art these days.

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    Jack says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 10

    Irene wasn’t a hurricane when it reached CT, it was a tropical storm. Therefore, the hurricane deductible wouldn’t apply anyway. Much to do about nothing…

    • September 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm
      Longtime Agent says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 11
      Thumb down 1

      To hear the lamestream media and the politicians talk, this was the storm of the century all up and down the east coast. Whether it was called a hurricane or tropical storm, it is still wind and several billion in insured losses. Politicians need to stay out of our business. They have made a huge mess with FEMA which is broke and now want to rule the insurance industry. I agree with Rusty that when the companies file for a rate increase due to losses, they will be turned down and told to eat it.

    • September 13, 2011 at 1:59 pm
      Windy Williams says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Unless you have a named storm or wind/hail deductible…not all are just ‘hurricane’ deductibles. If it is a true hurricane ded, it depends on what was declared per state by the NWS, but if you have a named storm or wind/hail..PONY UP! :)

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:34 pm
    Waterbug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 14
    Thumb down 5

    Just another example of the insurance industry being under seige by the looney left.

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:44 pm
    Rusty says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 0

    This makes me want to puke. Buffalo Bill said it best -”giving away some
    body else’s money is a time honored political tradition….”
    Fast forward ’till the next time these very same insurers file for a much needed rate increase – how will the magnanimous governor react to that?????

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:50 pm
    Underwriter says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 0

    Although the northeast has had more class 3 and above hurricanes in the last 150 years than GA, the fact that none have hit recently have caused most companies to fall asleep in underwriting wind exposures in the north. Since many of those company execs live in the area or have property there, they have the “it can never happen to me” attitude. Couple that with the growing entitlement mentality in our nation and there is little wonder that the states are expecting deductibles to be waived.

  • September 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm
    HNW Personal Lines Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Carriers in the affluent/high net worth market typically eithe include a “large loss deductible waiver” within their contracts or offer it as an additional cost option. However, the LLDW does NOT apply to hurricane losses. When the carriers waive the hurricane deductibles – typically 2% – 5% of the dwelling limit (NOT market value), will they then bill the policyholders for the higher premiums that would have been charged if they did not have the deductible? (Most carriers require a minimum 2% wind/hurricane deductible for coastal locations.)

  • September 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm
    La Man says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 1

    Jack, your point is valid if all are “hurricane ded’s”. However, it is very possible that some may have “wind” ded’s. Regardless, I think this is opening Pandora’s box on many levels.

  • September 6, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    Price Shopper says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Suppose they do. And then consumers will shop price at next renewal with no thought of loyalty to the company that did right by them, justifying it by saying what all consumers say “that’s what you have insurance for”.

    Suppose they don’t. Then they will be the villans consumers & polititians claim they are. Just taking everyone’s money.

  • September 6, 2011 at 4:15 pm
    Lucky says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    In some forms, the percentage deductible applies to named storms so it isn’t limited to hurricanes. Agree that waiving the deductibles is a foolish precedent.

  • September 6, 2011 at 4:50 pm
    Curtis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    If I was a policyholder not effected by the hurricane I would be upset that my company is going to waive another policyholder’s deductible but not mine when I have a “fill in the blank” claim. Can you say “Class Action”.

  • September 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm
    Concerned says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    why would i pay more for a lower deductible if the insurance department asks them to be waived? Why be insured at all? just ask for coverage i did not pay for if something bad happens.

    • September 6, 2011 at 5:02 pm
      Longtime Agent says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 7
      Thumb down 2

      What you do is ask for a bailout by the government if you have a loss. During Katrina, FEMA was handing out checks to people without insurance, giving them trailers to live in etc. Most of these people have been on the dole by the government for years and had no trouble accepting additional aid. We see how well the government program has worked to rehabilitate New Orleans. Except for private donations and work, much of the area is still blighted.

  • September 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm
    Bartleby says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 13
    Thumb down 0

    So the contract says one thing but the companies are to ignore it because the insured will be in trouble? At what point does personal accountability enter the picture? Part of being able to afford a home or car includes the need to insure it and pay the applicable deductible when there is damage.

    • September 8, 2011 at 9:35 am
      Open Eyes says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 6
      Thumb down 0

      There was the case recently where a guy in Joplin, Mo had let his HO lapse. He saw the storm approaching and tried to call his agent to bind coverage but couldn’t reach the agent. Of course the storm took the home and all was lost. The agent would have lost his appointment with the company had he bound coverage for this dude with a Tornado approaching. This is the type of society we are living in, one crisis to the next. No personal responsibility and expecting someone else to take care of them.

  • September 7, 2011 at 9:35 am
    Longtime Agent says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 16
    Thumb down 3

    Part of the problem in our society currently is the “entitlement” mentality championed by the Progressive Left. Profit is a dirty word and insurance companies should pay regardless of what the contract says. Politicians trying to curry votes play to human weakness of accepting something when it was not paid for. We have to get government out of our business. The Insurance business is based on assumption of risk and they have a right to underwrite for a profit and don’t need politicians interferring with insurance contracts.

  • September 7, 2011 at 10:01 am
    D Cummings says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    If I were running an insurance company my answer would be a definite “NO!”. The insureds pay a lower premium because of
    the deductible.

  • September 7, 2011 at 11:39 am
    Longtime Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    You are right D. Contracts should mean something. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. Progressives would really like to do away with the Constitution altogether and make law to suit their agenda. Trying to do away with deductibles that are on the contract is abhorent and should be resisted.

  • September 7, 2011 at 12:04 pm
    wtf says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    makes sense , why should both parties honor the legal contract agreed to?

  • September 7, 2011 at 6:47 pm
    Mimi G says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Question; all Insurance companies, FEMA and our Government. “why are so many US States (city, parish or county), residents within a state *NOT required to have FLOOD INSURANCE?” Especially a RIVER, LAKE or COASTAL state area…
    Possibly if EVERYONE were *required to pay a *little for FLOOD Insurance then large deductibles would not be needed and our government would not have to step in to cover so many *uninsured. Time and time again we hear news of flooded or storm hit areas that were NOT required to have flood insurance… WHY???

    • September 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm
      GL GURU says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      “If everyone paid a little” This is one of the reasons why NFI and FHCF don’t work because rates are not adequate. If rates were risk based then we would not have people building in areas that are flood prone. Little rates are creating a moral hazard and environmental destruction.

    • September 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm
      Open Eyes says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Mimi, you may not like my answer, but in reality it is the entitlement society we live in which has caused the shortfall. The reason why there are so many “uninsured” is that they know the government will step in and help them anyway. Why buy insurance if you have the Feds on your side. The best example is New Orleans where none of the people flooded in the 9th Ward had Flood Insurance. Nonetheless, the Feds were there handing them checks and providing trailers for them to live in. Billions have poured in from FEMA and private donations and they still haven’t made a dent in rebuilding the city. Where did all this money go?

  • September 8, 2011 at 4:12 pm
    LisaL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Much to my surprise most insurance carriers agreed to waive the deductible.

  • September 9, 2011 at 2:01 pm
    M and M says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Nutmegers need to suck it up and just deal with it….. that’s what we have been doing in Florida for the last umpteen years. This is insane!

  • September 9, 2011 at 3:14 pm
    Joe Doakes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I started a rant here (but deleted it to make the following points:
    * colossally stupid idea;
    * this governor must be a Socialist;
    * proposed only to please and placate (coastal-property owners) election-fund contributors;
    * where is the line between ‘coastal’ and non-coastal properties?
    * law-suits from claimants outside the ‘coastal’ area?
    * why not waive EVERYONE’s deductible?
    * why not kick-in state funds to pay deductibles?
    * who will ‘help’ those un-insured owners?

    and finally:
    * colossally stupid idea
    * this governor must be a socialist.

  • September 9, 2011 at 3:29 pm
    Open Eyes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 1

    Joe, I agree with you. I don’t think it makes much difference to these people where the damaged property is, they want a hand out from either the insurance market or the government anytime there is a storm or problem. Can you say entitlement society? The left have been brainwashing America for many years in the media to expect something for nothing. Sad, but true!

  • September 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm
    Joe Doakes says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    I live on a hill far away from the sea and away from any water-body which might flood, so some may consider these comments to be “sour grapes”. But here goes: I have little sympathy for people who are dumb enough to live so close to the sea or to any body of water, that their home might be damaged by flood. And I NO sympathy for those idiots who, after their property is flooded or ruined by the seas and storms, are dumb enough to go back to the SAME SPOT to re-build. (Of course, they’ve got the Governor on speed-dial)

  • September 12, 2011 at 11:39 am
    MarketMaker says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Governor Malloy’s father and two brothers, a nephew and a niece are/were in the insurance business in Stamford. You figure it out.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features