This letter to policyholders seems to replicate the Citizens “opt-out” letter, which in effect states, “Unless you return this letter saying “no”, we will take your policy out of Citizens.”. I believe this is permitted by statute, but I don’t see how HCI can claim this kind of privilege with HomeWise’s policyholders.
On the other hand, maybe it’s different. Ie, maybe the policyholder has to return a letter agreeing to the transfer. Does anyone know how the letter reads?
The policyholder has to opt-out within 30 days, although the assumption has occurred as of 11/1/11. I do not see the benefit of opting out as the insured can still shop the coverage (not that there is much to shop it today). Why would they stay with a company that is in financial disrepair and risk having a claim? Again, this assumption was done under Government supervision.
Don’t you think this procedure can be legally challenged? Who gave the OIR, Homewise and HCI the right to interfere in a two party contract? Agreed, OIR “blessed” it, but I’m wondering where there’s legal authority. Agreed, in best interest of policyholder to cancel Homewise immediately,but the old “if you don’t get back to us, we assume you approve”, has no legal force as I see it. And if Homewise intends to transfer their whole UPR to HCI before all is said and done, there’s going to be a lot of money flying in a lot of directions.
A buyout similar to the Florida Peninsula/Edison deal is what I was expecting. As long as the contract remains the same until renewal though I don’t see where a challenge would be in play. When Washington Mutual became Chase you couldn’t challenge your credit card account as long as the terms didn’t change.
This letter to policyholders seems to replicate the Citizens “opt-out” letter, which in effect states, “Unless you return this letter saying “no”, we will take your policy out of Citizens.”. I believe this is permitted by statute, but I don’t see how HCI can claim this kind of privilege with HomeWise’s policyholders.
On the other hand, maybe it’s different. Ie, maybe the policyholder has to return a letter agreeing to the transfer. Does anyone know how the letter reads?
The policyholder has to opt-out within 30 days, although the assumption has occurred as of 11/1/11. I do not see the benefit of opting out as the insured can still shop the coverage (not that there is much to shop it today). Why would they stay with a company that is in financial disrepair and risk having a claim? Again, this assumption was done under Government supervision.
Don’t you think this procedure can be legally challenged? Who gave the OIR, Homewise and HCI the right to interfere in a two party contract? Agreed, OIR “blessed” it, but I’m wondering where there’s legal authority. Agreed, in best interest of policyholder to cancel Homewise immediately,but the old “if you don’t get back to us, we assume you approve”, has no legal force as I see it. And if Homewise intends to transfer their whole UPR to HCI before all is said and done, there’s going to be a lot of money flying in a lot of directions.
A buyout similar to the Florida Peninsula/Edison deal is what I was expecting. As long as the contract remains the same until renewal though I don’t see where a challenge would be in play. When Washington Mutual became Chase you couldn’t challenge your credit card account as long as the terms didn’t change.