I think the state should not let the insurance companies that are pulling out of the coastal area insure ANYTHING in the state, including car insurance, life, and health. If the insurance companies want, they can make the insurance so costly no one would use it, instead of just not even offering a policy. This way it would be up to the consumer to have a choice which to use. Since the company is dropping writing new policies because the risk is up, maybe they should give a refund for all the times there wasn\’t a hurricane.
I agree. Insurance companies should only collect a customers premium after they\’ve paid out on a claim. I once didn\’t watch TV for 2 weeks so I think my cable company should give me a 50% refund for that month too. Makes total business sense to me.
Hey B. Brilliant. If you go on vacation for 2 wks. then you only owe 1/2 your mortgage pmt. If you drive your car all month with no accidents it\’s free!!! If you only use your phone 1 time a month you only pay for that. If you don\’t die, you don\’t owe any life insurance premium. What a concept!
What ever happened to \”spreading the risk\”? I though years like \’06, with no major weather events & low combined loss ratios, increase a companies surplus in order to pay for future cats. Who is the customer – the insured or the stockholder?
Gee how about clear concise policies spelling out exactly what\’s covered and what isn\’t and what\’s covered in a mixed case loss such as flood and hurricane and tornado and high winds and how about enforcing the policies as they\’re written-like contracts & not subjecting them to endless litigation for uncovered claims?
Funny how the rule of law & contract enforcement & protection doesn\’t make it into their reasoning.
I think the state should not let the insurance companies that are pulling out of the coastal area insure ANYTHING in the state, including car insurance, life, and health. If the insurance companies want, they can make the insurance so costly no one would use it, instead of just not even offering a policy. This way it would be up to the consumer to have a choice which to use. Since the company is dropping writing new policies because the risk is up, maybe they should give a refund for all the times there wasn\’t a hurricane.
I agree. Insurance companies should only collect a customers premium after they\’ve paid out on a claim. I once didn\’t watch TV for 2 weeks so I think my cable company should give me a 50% refund for that month too. Makes total business sense to me.
Hey B. Brilliant. If you go on vacation for 2 wks. then you only owe 1/2 your mortgage pmt. If you drive your car all month with no accidents it\’s free!!! If you only use your phone 1 time a month you only pay for that. If you don\’t die, you don\’t owe any life insurance premium. What a concept!
Give ol\’ \”B\” a break. Feeble minds have feeble ideas… much like legislatures melding in insurance.
My apologies. Apparently my sarcasm was too subtle. I was making fun of Kevin in my post.
What ever happened to \”spreading the risk\”? I though years like \’06, with no major weather events & low combined loss ratios, increase a companies surplus in order to pay for future cats. Who is the customer – the insured or the stockholder?
Gee how about clear concise policies spelling out exactly what\’s covered and what isn\’t and what\’s covered in a mixed case loss such as flood and hurricane and tornado and high winds and how about enforcing the policies as they\’re written-like contracts & not subjecting them to endless litigation for uncovered claims?
Funny how the rule of law & contract enforcement & protection doesn\’t make it into their reasoning.
\”It looks like they\’re picking and choosing where they want to do business,\’\’ Pipkin said.
What business is Pipkin in, outside of politics? Does he pick and choose? Or does the state make all his business decisions for him?