What a silly position for PIA and AIA to take – of course, the carriers MUST write coastal HO policies. But if I had my way, coastal would start at an elevation 100 feet above MHW – if the big dummies want to build big coastal love shacks, let em, but then assume the risk is YOURS and not mine. And if NFIP wants to provide building (not that THEY assume the risk) then go for it.
I think the legislature ought to determine whether the exposures – which will undoubtedly increase over time – are really worth allowing unchecked development, or whether smart growth is better for the public good – but don’t expect private industry to insure the exposures. Insurance is NOT for the common good – companies must be allowed to earn a reasonable amount of money in return for a reasonable amount of exposure.
Anything else would be similar to CA demanding that all policies include EQ coverage. Let the government step in and front a little more, as they do with TRIA.
What a silly position for PIA and AIA to take – of course, the carriers MUST write coastal HO policies. But if I had my way, coastal would start at an elevation 100 feet above MHW – if the big dummies want to build big coastal love shacks, let em, but then assume the risk is YOURS and not mine. And if NFIP wants to provide building (not that THEY assume the risk) then go for it.
I think the legislature ought to determine whether the exposures – which will undoubtedly increase over time – are really worth allowing unchecked development, or whether smart growth is better for the public good – but don’t expect private industry to insure the exposures. Insurance is NOT for the common good – companies must be allowed to earn a reasonable amount of money in return for a reasonable amount of exposure.
Anything else would be similar to CA demanding that all policies include EQ coverage. Let the government step in and front a little more, as they do with TRIA.