N.Y. Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Cap Hurricane Deductibles at $1,500

January 10, 2013
New York capitol building

  • January 10, 2013 at 1:50 pm
    Scott Romoser says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 26
    Thumb down 0

    Bad idea.

  • January 10, 2013 at 1:54 pm
    Broker of Record says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 28
    Thumb down 0

    So if you make a $1,500 wind deductible instead of a %, won’t premiums rise?

  • January 10, 2013 at 1:57 pm
    Compman says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 39
    Thumb down 0

    two more idiots who know nothing about insurance. Increase the exposure for the companies and rates will go up.

  • January 10, 2013 at 1:58 pm
    Interested says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 23
    Thumb down 0

    Unbelievable!
    Here we go – government telling carriers what to do. Next there will be a NY Windstorm Tax.

  • January 10, 2013 at 2:09 pm
    FL Ins Lady says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 37
    Thumb down 0

    Being a Florida agent I can say that isn’t going to work. Pass a Bill like that and you will have every Homeowner’s Carrier in NY running for the hills. Going through storms on a regular basis we’re lucky to get a $1,000 deductible for all perils and a 2-10% windstorm and/or hurricane deductible. They better rethink that Bill or they won’t have any one wanting to write homeowners coverage for coastal inhabitants.

    • January 10, 2013 at 2:42 pm
      Tweety Bird says:
      Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 13
      Thumb down 0

      Wow! These people should stick to their politics. I have been in the industry for many years now. And it’s a simple FACT that if this bill passes which i am almost quite sure that it will NOT. Then RATES go up and insurance carriers will NOT write homeowners coverage for that coastal line area for sure.

      I agree with everyone on this comment page.

  • January 10, 2013 at 2:46 pm
    Simple Math says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 1

    This would pass a vote today but, given time, will die from corruption and lobbying.

  • January 10, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    jw says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 0

    Well, I guess if you have $75,000 or less of coverage and a 2% deductible, your rates wouldn’t go up. Otherwise, yep, your rates would increase, in some cases dramatically. Excellent plan. Good luck with that.

  • January 10, 2013 at 3:04 pm
    caffiend says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    If it passes kiss goodbye to any the chance of a carrier writing wind coverage at all. Going to be a large number of ex-wind policies pretty soon.

    • January 11, 2013 at 1:53 pm
      W_B says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 1
      Thumb down 0

      At least for Commercial you can’t exclude wind so no x-wind there. Won’t be long, if this passes, for it to get extended to Commercial.

  • January 10, 2013 at 3:22 pm
    AJ says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 20

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • January 10, 2013 at 4:02 pm
    GB says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 9
    Thumb down 0

    Companies are already filing for higher windstorm deductibles since our tri-state governors declared Sandy a “superstorm” and not a Hurricane! Passing this legislation will destroy an already fragile market for New York City and Long Island. This is a very bad idea.

    • January 11, 2013 at 7:54 am
      Mike says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 0

      Wasn’t it the National Weather Service that declared Sandy was no longer exhibiting tropical characteristics prior to it making landfall and therefore labeled it a “Post-Tropical Cyclone” at that point? Would most companies forms legally apply a hurricane or tropical cyclone deductible to damage caused by wind from a storm that the National Weather Service declared not to be a hurricane or a tropical storm?

      • January 11, 2013 at 9:03 am
        jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 0

        You’re right, Mike. The NWS downgraded Sandy prior to landfall. The politicians’ statements actually did nothing but make them sound good since most policies follow the NWS for which deductible applies.

  • January 10, 2013 at 4:15 pm
    jtownagent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Can you say wind pool?

  • January 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    ekLIagent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 1

    Keep the wind deductibles and have the state create a wind buyback program (like flood coverage) that the insured can purchase. It will be interesting to see how the government would price this coverage and make a profitable venture.

  • January 10, 2013 at 4:41 pm
    ekLIagent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    Maybe the companies should keep the wind deductibles and the government should provide a wind buyback policy (like having availability for flood and property) for consumers to buy. It will be interesting to see how the government would price this and keep the program viable without getting the taxpayer involved.

  • January 11, 2013 at 1:51 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    What’s to stop a company from just requiring a 2% all peril deductible in coastal areas?

  • January 11, 2013 at 8:36 am
    Bob says:
    Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 5
    Thumb down 16

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • January 11, 2013 at 11:02 am
    tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 0

    Admitted companies will stop writing – and/or withdraw. Nonadmitted companies would still use whatever windstorm deductible they choose. Bad idea.

  • January 11, 2013 at 11:11 am
    tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 7
    Thumb down 0

    Non admitted companies would continue to use whatever wind deductible they choose. Admitted companies would stop writing and\or cancel their policies. This is a half baked idea that would backfire bigtime.

  • January 11, 2013 at 4:56 pm
    Sybil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    Both these NY lawmakers districts include the Hampton’s! It’s hard enough placing business now with a percentage deductible. Write these dudes, I just did.

  • January 14, 2013 at 9:06 am
    BWM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 0

    It might make sense to require insurers to offer an option for a $1,500 deductible, along with an option for a percentage-based deductible, and let the property owner choose which amount, and premium, is tolerable. It shouldn’t be necessary to require all policies to be written the same way.

  • January 15, 2013 at 2:54 pm
    CHG says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    And of course everyone who thinks this is a marvelous idea, so beneficial to the consumer, will be shocked, shocked, I tell you, to find out that the price of coverage has to go up to pay for this or coverage will become harder to find.

    When that does happen, no one will see cause and effect; they will just say that the insurers are greedy and trying to profit off of the tragedies of the poor innocent insureds.

  • January 16, 2013 at 4:17 pm
    jim hildebrand says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    I’m not sure writing to those with so little common sense would understand anything logical. This is obviously a political ploy to make it appear they have the public’s interest at heart. NOT!!
    They’re just looking to be re-elected (could never find a real job) and then apologize later for their “mis-understanding” of the situation due to incorrect information provided by the opposition (crooked, greedy bastard insurance companies,of course)



Add a Comment

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

*

More News
More News Features