Insurers Abandon Long Island After Superstorm, N.Y. Senator Schumer Says

By Kathleen Chaykowski | June 25, 2013

  • June 25, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    Cheetoh Mulligan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s how it all started in Florida! Rate hikes and cancellations. The good news for the area is that it is not prone to big storms, so this will probably just blow over in a few years.

  • June 25, 2013 at 1:42 pm
    jtownagent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Schumer said “precious little justification”…..$18.8 billion is little justification!?!

  • June 25, 2013 at 2:18 pm
    Huh! says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When congress — or anyone — can compel an insurance company to offer insurance, we have moved into extreme totalitarianism. If I were a NY resident, I would certainly not vote to keep Senator Schumer in office.

    • June 25, 2013 at 2:58 pm
      J says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Seems Chuck needs to read the 10th Amendment and also apologize to the NY Insurance Commissioner.

    • June 25, 2013 at 3:13 pm
      youngin' says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Unless you live in Long Island.

  • June 25, 2013 at 3:05 pm
    InsGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hmmm, so let me get this straight. AFTER a claim you retroactively re-write a policy to invalidate deductibles, and change the definition of a ‘basement’ within the executed contract. Then tell companies they cannot cancel / non-renew (even though the insured structure is completely gone). And now your doing away with the anti-concurrent causation exclusion.

    Now my comment on the article, is, “OMG, Really? Why are they leaving?”

    • June 25, 2013 at 3:47 pm
      Boca Condo King says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Best comment of the month two thumbs up…

  • June 25, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    youngin' says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Had they done this a year ago there would have been even less justification, Chuck!

  • June 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    Libby says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Chuck’s just grandstanding for his constituents. He knows he has no leg to stand on here.

  • June 26, 2013 at 7:44 am
    Don Quixote says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Typical NY Liberal short-term thinking. Gee, let’s make it really really difficult to do business under layers of regulations and then let’s change the rules after the game starts and finally, we really don’t want this particular industry to make much of a profit so we’ll put caps on that as well. Of course, all these companies will just flock to our state to do business! Yeah, right.

    • June 26, 2013 at 2:01 pm
      Brokie says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Not confined to JUST liberals. David Vitter in Louisiana vehemently opposes (justified) higher rates for flood insurance – as if Katrina never happened. Yep, no losses paid there…..Schumer, Vitter, Landreau, the Jersey crowd – crossing party lines for a Koom-Bye-Yah moment as they pander to the constituency against the mean, greedy insurance companies.

      • June 26, 2013 at 6:21 pm
        InsGuy says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        @Brokie – your are right on the money. This isn’t a partisan issue, Republicans need votes from their constituents just like everyone else.

        Sadly, the totalitarian shift is coming from both sides.

  • June 27, 2013 at 10:55 am
    youngin' says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That’s the worst part of these hyper-partisan commments. There’s no acknowledgement of the fact that representatives say or do whatever they need to in order to get elected in their districts. I would argue that this is actually their job, not a character flaw (unless they contradict themselves, lie, or change their positions on a whim). It’s comments like these that fuel the nonsensical partisan environment that prevents anything from getting accomplished in Congress. It’s constituents like these that allow the representatives to continue their misplaced focus on partisan points scoring. By definition, there is no common ground because people seem to be accepting the “us versus them” paradigm, which is ridiculous. If everyone could just calm the **** down and start acting like adults maybe the quality of what little legislation is actually passed would improve.

    • June 27, 2013 at 12:19 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Now THAT was the best post all year. Too bad I only have 2 thumbs.

    • June 27, 2013 at 1:24 pm
      InsGuy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      So you argue that “their job” is to say or do whatever is needed in order to get elected. Wow. And, you summarize by suggesting the quality of legislation will improve if everyone just goes along?

      Please post your picture so we can paste it into Webster’s next to the definition of “sheeple”.

      • June 27, 2013 at 4:28 pm
        Libby says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Their job is to do the business of the people. Very little of that has been done in the last several years. But I think the point being made is they can’t do anything if they are not elected.

        We do not have to “go along.” But instead of fighting amongst ourselves, why do we not band together and fight the mediocrity in Washington?

      • July 1, 2013 at 8:36 am
        youngin' says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        Each rep’s job is to represent their constituency to the best of their ability. Elections are how they are held accountable. If they do an inadequate job representing the interests of their contituencies, they should not be re-elected.

        You wanna talk about sheeple? Sheeple follow party lines. They reward this congressional misbehavior by re-electing whoever scores the most points against the “other” party. How many times is the House going to symbolically repeal Obamacare? It’s madness, and the sheeple eat it up.

    • June 27, 2013 at 5:59 pm
      C'mon, youngin' says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      “…not a character flaw (unless they contradict themselves, lie, or change their positions on a whim…”. Seriously, what else have they done? EVER!?

  • June 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    fred katz says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    schumer.

    insurance companies don’t & shouldn’t insure high/bad risks .

    makes rates higher for the rest of us.

    think mortgages for bad risks. we barely lived through that government sponsored fiasco.

    and it looks like you & your luddite self serving cronies are trying to restart that.

    If you choose to leave in a high risk area ( floods, earth quakes, fire zones, mudslides etc)

    its @ your OWN risk.

    if you can get insurance it will be @ a much higher rate.

    its always been like that.

    • June 28, 2013 at 1:36 pm
      Libby says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Fred says “insurance companies don’t & shouldn’t insure high/bad risks.”

      You can always find insurance, but a high/bad risk will pay more for it. You can’t expect people to move from places that have been their home for generations. That’s not practical. Plus, where are they supposed to go? To your town?

      • July 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm
        Whodathunkit? says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        It is practical to move and sensible. Moved from Miami to the Mid-Atlantic after Andrew. Kids were raised in Miami and none of them live there either. It’s not an easy decision, and it is risky to almost start over, but you gotta do what you gotta do. We are a mobile society.

  • July 1, 2013 at 10:55 am
    Jack Allen says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thats pretty funny given what FEMA is doing to Pre_FIRM homes starting Oct 1 2013. If you live in a home built prior to flood insuance rate maps (FIRM) being established you are about to get killed by your rates. You will be forced to get an elevation certificate and if you end up being like a -4 your premiums are going to over 10k a year just for your flood.

    • July 1, 2013 at 11:44 am
      sean f shadle says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Why is the Federal Government in the insurance business in the first place? Oh, that’s right, no money to be made in Flood, Crop, or even Tria. Let the taxpayers pick up those risks. Meanwhile, keep screaming about deficits and the size of the federal government. Just another example of socializing risk and privatizing profits. You can’t have it both ways. Or can you?

  • July 1, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    Gordon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How ignorant is Schumer? He clearly acts as if he does not understand risk, risk management and the basic concept of insurance. He should keep his ill-informed mouth shut until he understands what he is talking about.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*