Connecticut Senator Says Surcharge to Help Homeowners Is Not Dead

April 10, 2018

  • April 10, 2018 at 1:32 pm
    Govs Gotta Go says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 8
    Thumb down 2

    Why doesn’t CT pick up the tab for this too? They seem willing to open our checkbooks up for everything else!!

    • April 10, 2018 at 8:42 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 3
      Thumb down 7

      CT Socialist Dems are willing to make the ‘rich’ who can afford homes pay the subsidies, instead of all taxpayers, some of whom are not ‘rich’. Socialists always try to punish the ‘rich’ and give to the ‘poor’.

      • April 10, 2018 at 11:47 pm
        glee says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 3
        Thumb down 2

        What is the difference in making the rich who can afford homes pay it & making people who can’t even afford homes pay it, which is what happens if all taxpayers pay? Why not make the insurance companies offer it as an optional coverage for those who want it?

        • April 11, 2018 at 9:14 am
          PolarBeaRepeal says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 4

          This type of claim should be covered by the general contractor’s liability policy. The CT homes cases noted likely exist due to inadequate coverage limits (no coverage?). I don’t have the details of the CT homes, so I presume coverage existed but was exhausted by an agg limit. There is a remote possibility no coverage was bought and the buyers never checked the contractors liability policy(ies).

          Rather than ask why shouldn’t taxpayers pay, ask the proper question: i.e.
          Why should all TAXPAYERS pay for the folly of certain contractors or home buyers? Could I get a taxpayer bailout if I buy a lemon car? A bad cellphone? etc. Where would such taxpayer punishment in the form of product warranties begin and end?

  • April 11, 2018 at 10:20 am
    Frank A. Lombard CPCU ARM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 4
    Thumb down 2

    If your “lemon car” caused an accident which damaged your house, wouldn’t you expect your homeowner’s policy to cover the damage to your house (and it does)? If your “bad cell phone” starts a fire and burns your house down, wouldn’t you expect your home insurance to cover the damage (and it does)?
    How can you say these Connecticut homeowners are not entitled to the structural damage resulting from this defective material in the foundation’s concrete? Their insurers would have the right, the resources and the expertise to recover the expenses they incur to repair these homes and protect them from further damage. And these legislators know or should know that.

    • April 11, 2018 at 9:44 pm
      PolarBeaRepeal says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 1

      Read an M&C liability policy and a Products liability policy sometime soon.

      • April 12, 2018 at 7:33 am
        PolarBeaRepeal says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 2
        Thumb down 1

        Also, read an Auto policy for PDL coverage details. Quiz: which party pays when an auto illegally enters a RR crossing and damages a train? Extra credit: discuss the term ‘subrogation’ in relation to the initial question.

        • April 12, 2018 at 11:01 am
          Frank A. Lombard CPCU ARM says:
          Like or Dislike:
          Thumb up 3
          Thumb down 2

          I’m not sure your comments have anything to do with the scope of coverage provided by a homeowners’ policy but I’m sure Insurance Journal readers know the difference between homeowners” coverage and an auto illegally entering a railroad crossing.

    • April 13, 2018 at 11:22 am
      Not Sure says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Would this not be considered to be wear and tear? As far as I understand the houses have not yet collapsed but are expected to at some point in the future. The insurance dept has forbid rate increases/dropping of these properties. Doesn’t exactly seem fair to the carriers in my opinion.

      • April 17, 2018 at 8:57 am
        Frank A. Lombard CPCU ARM says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        The “wear and tear” exclusion found in most property policies refers to “normal” wear and tear. The damage to these Connecticut foundations was determined to be a “defective” material, not normal wear and tear. While property policies exclude damage caused by “defective” material or workmanship, they generally cover “ensuing” or resulting damage to the rest of the structure. If insurers did not intend to cover “resulting” damage, they would not have included that wording in the exception to the exclusion. Everyone’s attention is focused on the “foundation”, when the real damage is to the rest of the structure. Why aren’t insurers stepping up to cover that and the “reasonable steps” homeowners are required to take to protect their property from further damage?

  • May 12, 2018 at 3:39 pm
    CTyankee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Quick easy and lazy solution by our elected officials. Their answer is always the same regardless of the issue…. add a tax, raise a tax and send the bill to taxpayers.
    Ideally, the Attorney general should have been handed this issue. The AG’s office should have held concrete company liable…seized assets business and personal property and the gone after the owners of the company. The company should have product liability insurance.
    The concrete company, owners and their insurance companies should be funding these repairs. Whether they are still in business or not… assets can be frozen and liquidated and the insurance should have been in force while they were in business. The taxpayers of CT should not be asked to fund these repairs via a surcharge on their homeowners, that is the lazy way out.



Add a Comment

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

*