This is PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND CAPITALISM.
No company should HAVE to lose money because idiots build homes in the way of ANNUAL hurricanes and UNDER sea level????
State Farm is NOT a govt. company, YET. Why make them lose money. Figures appear to say it will take State Farm and large carriers in Louisiana 150 years to recover the claims from the hurricanes there. Why would such a move be intelligent for any for profit company?
for you that are critical of State Farm: these property owners shouldn’t have a problem finding another carrier if there isn’t a serioius problem, should they?
if they do, then maybe they aren’t a good insurance prospect. Good for State Farm. like Az said, it’s a private company and the marketplace should drive their decisions.
right on Bob. if the risks are attractive enough, somebody will offer coverage. if not, nobody will offer coverage. that’s the beauty of free markets….while we still have them.
What about the loyal customers who paid for insurance on these properties for 20-30 plus years without a single claim? How is that fair and good business?
I agree with it not being fair to those who been insured for so long by State Farm. I’ve never done business with the group but my insurer didn’t just drop me for no reason. It wouldn’t of bothered me if they got the hell out of Florida anyway but politics got in the way of course. I feel bad for those loyal customers in NC.
Melissa and Lynne. Why don’t you ladies run along and get us men a cup of coffee! I’ll explain this slowly for you both. If your risk is attractive enough (aka the insurer believes they can make money on it) then our free market (and market cycle) has insurance companies tripping over each other to write your coverage. if it is not attractive enough (aka, they don’t believe they can make money on your policy) then their will either offer coverage at a higher rate or not offer coverage at all.
i hope this helps.
As Ben Franklin used to say, “sure we want everybody. Except you. And you. And you. And you.”
Same sentiments for health insurance. Adjust the premiums to be profitable but insure everyone and stop paying $50 for 600mg of freaking Tylenol just because some hospital says THEY need to charge that much because of uninsured people.
Does anyone have the profit/loss numbers for SF in North Carolina? Or claim payments within the past few years? When they originally were pulling out of Florida, since it is a separate entity there, they were able to show the $millions they had lost in the past years.
If a company drops HO, etc. coverage in an area then they should not be allowed to write flood coverage. Let the flood business go to the company that is taking the risk of insuring the other coverages. This may cause State Farm to rethink their moves. As everyone knows flood insurance is a big winner for the companies.
If you want to protect the consumer then allow the insurers to get the rate increases they need so that the companies can continue to stay solvent. Insolvent companies = decreased competition and decreased competition does not equate consumer protection. Not a hard concept.
Besides people were never meant to build houses on barrier islands. Barrier islands exist to protect the freaking shorelines of the mainland – they are there to absorb storms i.e. hurricanes. And if you want to put a house on the barrier island then you should pay the cost for being an idiot that wants to have a view and not understanding the function of a barrier island.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders. Its time to stop no more.
I don’t understand your logic. State Farm is wrong for dropping “loyal customers” who were insured with them for 20+ claim-free years? How does that matter at all?
The number of years you’re insured with a company should not come into effect with their underwriting decisiosn. They may toss around things like loyalty discounts or claim forgiveness but they shouldn’t be forced to insure someone just because they did before.
That kind of logic should allow my insurance company to suggest that when I get a better rate with another company that I can’t switch companies since I’ve been insured with them for 15 years and they were expecting my premium for the next 15 years.
This has nothing to do with consumer protection. We can discuss price gouging with rate increases possibly being unfair but a company deciding they’re no longer taking a particular risk? That’s not anti-consumer in the least. It means those homeowners need to call an agent and find a new homeowner’s company. If it’s really not a risk there should be tons of available policies out there for them to chose from who can laugh all the way to the bank to deposit State Farm’s lost income.
Well it figures with State Farm and the coast. Why don’t they just go ahead and exclude New York City while they are add it.
This is PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND CAPITALISM.
No company should HAVE to lose money because idiots build homes in the way of ANNUAL hurricanes and UNDER sea level????
State Farm is NOT a govt. company, YET. Why make them lose money. Figures appear to say it will take State Farm and large carriers in Louisiana 150 years to recover the claims from the hurricanes there. Why would such a move be intelligent for any for profit company?
Well St Farm got what they wanted in Florida, so now they move on to N. Carolina.
Good Neighbors all right…… as long as you are not in any kind of a risk area.
Those risk’s have been there for years and St Farm had no problem originally writing that business.
for you that are critical of State Farm: these property owners shouldn’t have a problem finding another carrier if there isn’t a serioius problem, should they?
if they do, then maybe they aren’t a good insurance prospect. Good for State Farm. like Az said, it’s a private company and the marketplace should drive their decisions.
right on Bob. if the risks are attractive enough, somebody will offer coverage. if not, nobody will offer coverage. that’s the beauty of free markets….while we still have them.
What about the loyal customers who paid for insurance on these properties for 20-30 plus years without a single claim? How is that fair and good business?
I agree with it not being fair to those who been insured for so long by State Farm. I’ve never done business with the group but my insurer didn’t just drop me for no reason. It wouldn’t of bothered me if they got the hell out of Florida anyway but politics got in the way of course. I feel bad for those loyal customers in NC.
Melissa and Lynne. Why don’t you ladies run along and get us men a cup of coffee! I’ll explain this slowly for you both. If your risk is attractive enough (aka the insurer believes they can make money on it) then our free market (and market cycle) has insurance companies tripping over each other to write your coverage. if it is not attractive enough (aka, they don’t believe they can make money on your policy) then their will either offer coverage at a higher rate or not offer coverage at all.
i hope this helps.
I don’t get coffee for anyone. I’m more into consumer protection. This has nothing to do with men or woman either.
It is just business not personal.
As Ben Franklin used to say, “sure we want everybody. Except you. And you. And you. And you.”
Same sentiments for health insurance. Adjust the premiums to be profitable but insure everyone and stop paying $50 for 600mg of freaking Tylenol just because some hospital says THEY need to charge that much because of uninsured people.
Now go back to the law of large numbers . . .
Does anyone have the profit/loss numbers for SF in North Carolina? Or claim payments within the past few years? When they originally were pulling out of Florida, since it is a separate entity there, they were able to show the $millions they had lost in the past years.
If a company drops HO, etc. coverage in an area then they should not be allowed to write flood coverage. Let the flood business go to the company that is taking the risk of insuring the other coverages. This may cause State Farm to rethink their moves. As everyone knows flood insurance is a big winner for the companies.
Melissa,
If you want to protect the consumer then allow the insurers to get the rate increases they need so that the companies can continue to stay solvent. Insolvent companies = decreased competition and decreased competition does not equate consumer protection. Not a hard concept.
Besides people were never meant to build houses on barrier islands. Barrier islands exist to protect the freaking shorelines of the mainland – they are there to absorb storms i.e. hurricanes. And if you want to put a house on the barrier island then you should pay the cost for being an idiot that wants to have a view and not understanding the function of a barrier island.
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders. Its time to stop no more.
I don’t understand your logic. State Farm is wrong for dropping “loyal customers” who were insured with them for 20+ claim-free years? How does that matter at all?
The number of years you’re insured with a company should not come into effect with their underwriting decisiosn. They may toss around things like loyalty discounts or claim forgiveness but they shouldn’t be forced to insure someone just because they did before.
That kind of logic should allow my insurance company to suggest that when I get a better rate with another company that I can’t switch companies since I’ve been insured with them for 15 years and they were expecting my premium for the next 15 years.
This has nothing to do with consumer protection. We can discuss price gouging with rate increases possibly being unfair but a company deciding they’re no longer taking a particular risk? That’s not anti-consumer in the least. It means those homeowners need to call an agent and find a new homeowner’s company. If it’s really not a risk there should be tons of available policies out there for them to chose from who can laugh all the way to the bank to deposit State Farm’s lost income.