interesting they get an article with an allstate survey… note that in SC, allstate is getting ready to:
News Allstate dropping 10,000 homeowners who don’t bundle auto and home coverage and other reasons
Body of Article The Post and Courier, July 11, 2012
Allstate, one of South Carolina’s largest insurers, is dropping about 10,000 property owners who don’t bundle their home and auto coverage, have older houses and insure their homes for less than $220,000.
The move comes after the insurance company told 45,000 homeowners in North Carolina last year that it would not renew their policies if they didn’t have Allstate vehicle insurance.
With about 140,000 homeowner policies, Allstate is the state’s second-largest home insurance company after State Farm, which has about 300,000 policyholders.
“It’s a difficult decision” to non-renew customers, said Tracy Owens, an Allstate spokesman in Atlanta. “But we’re doing things to try to remain financially strong for all of our customers.”
Allstate’s thinking is skewed. They could offer an incentive to their Insureds for just being given the opportunity to quote both the home and the auto. If their pricing and product is worthwhile, the increase in sales should be automatic. There is a reason State Farm has more than twice the policyholders.
What gets me about people who don’t purchase renter’s insurance is that if their auto carrier also provided renter’s coverage, the bundle discount is usually very close to the premium payment on the renter’s insurance–making it almost free, or having a very low impact on your monthly budget.
Mostly, I think it just boils down to a lack of education on the buyer’s part, and potentially a lack of communication on the agent’s part (if they actually have/use an agent.)
Renter’s insurance saved my butt when some snot-rocket of a human being stole my wife’s (then fiance’s) engagement ring 2 weeks before our wedding.
I have always scratched my head about renters who can buy flat screens,ipads, iphones and any other electronic toys, but can’t come up with the $150 to buy a renters policy to protect their belongings and premises liability. It goes to show you where their priorities are. I see the fires at apartments and they interview people who lost everything and they never seem to have insurance. Then, the newsperson says that a fund is being set up at a bank to help these poor people. I guess they think someone will pay to replace their belongings so why buy insurance. Regarding Allstate, I am sure their non-renewal policies are very popular with their agents. No wonder they formed a guild/union to deal with management over compensation etc. Allstate bought Esurance so people could get coverage online and bypass agents and not have to pay commission. What a sweet deal.
And they were all purchased with cash, no receipts, right? Right along with their 5 pairs of True Religion jeans, 6 Coach purses, and 500 DVDS/Video games. And all were stolen right along with the $1,500 wad of cash in the drawer that they were planning on using to pay the rent with right?! //Eyeroll. Sorry, I’m jaded.
Wow, all the insurance “experience” represented here and in the survey creation, and nobody touches the primary reason why tenants should want to purchase insurance … their LIABILITY.
A tenant can have a huge liability exposure. What if they cause a fire that burns down the entire apartment complex, destroys all their neighbors’ property and causes serious injuries to a number of the other tenants? Some may see dollar signs on the homeowner but the renter is in a position to cause much more harm to others.
I guess it’s a matter of geographical location then.
Liability risk for renters is much greater in dense population zones with huge apartment complexes. (EG your fire example) But that very example almost makes the point null. If you burn down an apartment complex in New York City, the odds that your $100k-$300k liability coverage is going to do nothing to protect you from the millions of dollars of damage claims. You’re well into umbrella policy land there.
It matters less so in the suburbs/rural areas. (fewer apartment complexes, etc)
Still, I believe there’s greater risk for liability claims when you own property than just rent it. (accidents in the yard, ice on the sidewalk, etc.)
Renters don’t carry insurance because no one makes them. If landlords required it as a condition of leasing, then maybe that would change things. I personally require it of tenants in my rental property, but that’s because I’m in the insurance industry. There are likely many first time home buyers who would not think to purchase it if the mortgage company didn’t require it.
interesting they get an article with an allstate survey… note that in SC, allstate is getting ready to:
News Allstate dropping 10,000 homeowners who don’t bundle auto and home coverage and other reasons
Body of Article The Post and Courier, July 11, 2012
Allstate, one of South Carolina’s largest insurers, is dropping about 10,000 property owners who don’t bundle their home and auto coverage, have older houses and insure their homes for less than $220,000.
The move comes after the insurance company told 45,000 homeowners in North Carolina last year that it would not renew their policies if they didn’t have Allstate vehicle insurance.
With about 140,000 homeowner policies, Allstate is the state’s second-largest home insurance company after State Farm, which has about 300,000 policyholders.
“It’s a difficult decision” to non-renew customers, said Tracy Owens, an Allstate spokesman in Atlanta. “But we’re doing things to try to remain financially strong for all of our customers.”
… how will this affect everyone else?
Allstate’s thinking is skewed. They could offer an incentive to their Insureds for just being given the opportunity to quote both the home and the auto. If their pricing and product is worthwhile, the increase in sales should be automatic. There is a reason State Farm has more than twice the policyholders.
What gets me about people who don’t purchase renter’s insurance is that if their auto carrier also provided renter’s coverage, the bundle discount is usually very close to the premium payment on the renter’s insurance–making it almost free, or having a very low impact on your monthly budget.
Mostly, I think it just boils down to a lack of education on the buyer’s part, and potentially a lack of communication on the agent’s part (if they actually have/use an agent.)
Renter’s insurance saved my butt when some snot-rocket of a human being stole my wife’s (then fiance’s) engagement ring 2 weeks before our wedding.
I have always scratched my head about renters who can buy flat screens,ipads, iphones and any other electronic toys, but can’t come up with the $150 to buy a renters policy to protect their belongings and premises liability. It goes to show you where their priorities are. I see the fires at apartments and they interview people who lost everything and they never seem to have insurance. Then, the newsperson says that a fund is being set up at a bank to help these poor people. I guess they think someone will pay to replace their belongings so why buy insurance. Regarding Allstate, I am sure their non-renewal policies are very popular with their agents. No wonder they formed a guild/union to deal with management over compensation etc. Allstate bought Esurance so people could get coverage online and bypass agents and not have to pay commission. What a sweet deal.
Surprised the percentage of renters without coverage (45%) isn’t even higher than the study shows.
12 percent have a shoe collection…I don’t know about you but I’m sure as heck ain’t scheduling them!
And they were all purchased with cash, no receipts, right? Right along with their 5 pairs of True Religion jeans, 6 Coach purses, and 500 DVDS/Video games. And all were stolen right along with the $1,500 wad of cash in the drawer that they were planning on using to pay the rent with right?! //Eyeroll. Sorry, I’m jaded.
Wow, all the insurance “experience” represented here and in the survey creation, and nobody touches the primary reason why tenants should want to purchase insurance … their LIABILITY.
Perhaps because it was self-evident? :)
I don’t know. Clearly the liability protection is important–but not as much so as if they were a homeowner with real property.
A tenant can have a huge liability exposure. What if they cause a fire that burns down the entire apartment complex, destroys all their neighbors’ property and causes serious injuries to a number of the other tenants? Some may see dollar signs on the homeowner but the renter is in a position to cause much more harm to others.
I guess it’s a matter of geographical location then.
Liability risk for renters is much greater in dense population zones with huge apartment complexes. (EG your fire example) But that very example almost makes the point null. If you burn down an apartment complex in New York City, the odds that your $100k-$300k liability coverage is going to do nothing to protect you from the millions of dollars of damage claims. You’re well into umbrella policy land there.
It matters less so in the suburbs/rural areas. (fewer apartment complexes, etc)
Still, I believe there’s greater risk for liability claims when you own property than just rent it. (accidents in the yard, ice on the sidewalk, etc.)
Renters don’t carry insurance because no one makes them. If landlords required it as a condition of leasing, then maybe that would change things. I personally require it of tenants in my rental property, but that’s because I’m in the insurance industry. There are likely many first time home buyers who would not think to purchase it if the mortgage company didn’t require it.
Anyone who rents should have renter’s insurance, and so many do not realize it!