Polar, you may also be happy to know that Global Cooling has started up north so you won’t have to worry about becoming extinct as Gore said you would.
Glad you found favorable terms, libra! I agree with Rosenblatt that the admitted market won’t seek to write high risk flood accounts, other than at very high premiums and deductibles. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt there will be enough competition to drive down pricing. The need for reinsurance will also contribute to the rate that is charged.
“…other than at very high premiums and deductibles.” Isn’t that kind of the point though – the NFIP coverage is underpriced relative to risk, due to political considerations? The government is unwilling to actually charge what it takes to cover the losses, and private carriers cannot just go in the hole and take money from taxpayers to cover the difference. Driving down pricing isn’t, in my mind, the goal here – it’s actually to rationalize the pricing.
October 3, 2017 at 9:02 am
insnerd8 says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
In reply to CarrierGuy … the article states that the legislation will “allow more private flood insurers to enter the market, leading to increased competition and more affordable, comprehensive policies.”
My point was that in the higher risk areas, this outcome isn’t likely to be achieved. Absolutely, NFIP rates have been too low all along, and need to be increased. This was one of the goals of Biggert-Waters. But if property owners can’t afford the drastically higher premiums, what then?
There are no easy solutions, but yes, over time we do need to get to actuarially sound rates.
October 2, 2017 at 10:24 am
Gmann says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
FEMA/NFIP needs to obtain proof of loss as opposed to just awarding checks to people. As an insurance broker I have seen gross overpayment. In one case during Sandy, one client collected a check for $130,000 for their damages. They then spent only $25,000 to make complete repairs with new materials. No one is watching this type of abuse that is most likely running rampant.
Bravo! { muffled sound of my paws clapping fervently }
Polar, you may also be happy to know that Global Cooling has started up north so you won’t have to worry about becoming extinct as Gore said you would.
I agree with Polar that this is a good thing. However, I am skeptical that private carriers will actually want to write this type of risk.
I just bought Flood cover through Lloyds for rental property in Fl. Price wasn’t bad, compared to the HO6.
Glad you found favorable terms, libra! I agree with Rosenblatt that the admitted market won’t seek to write high risk flood accounts, other than at very high premiums and deductibles. I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt there will be enough competition to drive down pricing. The need for reinsurance will also contribute to the rate that is charged.
“…other than at very high premiums and deductibles.” Isn’t that kind of the point though – the NFIP coverage is underpriced relative to risk, due to political considerations? The government is unwilling to actually charge what it takes to cover the losses, and private carriers cannot just go in the hole and take money from taxpayers to cover the difference. Driving down pricing isn’t, in my mind, the goal here – it’s actually to rationalize the pricing.
In reply to CarrierGuy … the article states that the legislation will “allow more private flood insurers to enter the market, leading to increased competition and more affordable, comprehensive policies.”
My point was that in the higher risk areas, this outcome isn’t likely to be achieved. Absolutely, NFIP rates have been too low all along, and need to be increased. This was one of the goals of Biggert-Waters. But if property owners can’t afford the drastically higher premiums, what then?
There are no easy solutions, but yes, over time we do need to get to actuarially sound rates.
FEMA/NFIP needs to obtain proof of loss as opposed to just awarding checks to people. As an insurance broker I have seen gross overpayment. In one case during Sandy, one client collected a check for $130,000 for their damages. They then spent only $25,000 to make complete repairs with new materials. No one is watching this type of abuse that is most likely running rampant.