Mr. Palumbo’s statement that Citizens uses ISO’s most comprehensive coverage form is an incorrect statement. ISO’s HO-2000 filing reintroduced the HO-5–comprehensive form–which is far more comprehensive. In addition, I noticed the mention of the on-premises only theft and animal liability limitations were buried pretty deep in the analysis. These limitations are far from “industry standard.”
If the market is in such bad shape, how come the domestic companies (not Pups, but real domestics) are fighting for market share. The Florida domestic market share in 2006 almost doubled (to 36%)and will surely show dramatic growth in 2007. Real things are happening outside of Tallahassee. By the way, excluding the Poe business that was absorbed by Citizens, their growth has not been that dramatic in the past 18 months.
Bob: Please name the domestic companies that are writing new property business and taking market share. Then, please indicate which of these are not surplus lines carriers and have an AM Best rating of B+ or better. After you go through this exercise, you will understand the problem.
Good point Pat. Additionally, I’m not sure why Citizens felt compelled to respond. It is what it is. They don’t need to sell the “features and benefits” of writing a Citizens policy. Right or wrong, consumers will do without specfic coverages or limits if the rate difference between Citizens and a the voluntary market are great enough. You may not need need animal liability if you don’t own one or schedule jewelry if you don’t have it.
I have a B++ market that I love and make every effort to “sell” to qualified prospects. But if the insured insists on covering their pool cage for hurricane exposure, then Citizens may actually have better rates and coverages in some specific instances.
Mr. Palumbo’s statement that Citizens uses ISO’s most comprehensive coverage form is an incorrect statement. ISO’s HO-2000 filing reintroduced the HO-5–comprehensive form–which is far more comprehensive. In addition, I noticed the mention of the on-premises only theft and animal liability limitations were buried pretty deep in the analysis. These limitations are far from “industry standard.”
If the market is in such bad shape, how come the domestic companies (not Pups, but real domestics) are fighting for market share. The Florida domestic market share in 2006 almost doubled (to 36%)and will surely show dramatic growth in 2007. Real things are happening outside of Tallahassee. By the way, excluding the Poe business that was absorbed by Citizens, their growth has not been that dramatic in the past 18 months.
By their own admission, Citizens is receiving 70,000 new submissions each month. To me that sounds like dramatic growth.
Bob: Please name the domestic companies that are writing new property business and taking market share. Then, please indicate which of these are not surplus lines carriers and have an AM Best rating of B+ or better. After you go through this exercise, you will understand the problem.
Good point Pat. Additionally, I’m not sure why Citizens felt compelled to respond. It is what it is. They don’t need to sell the “features and benefits” of writing a Citizens policy. Right or wrong, consumers will do without specfic coverages or limits if the rate difference between Citizens and a the voluntary market are great enough. You may not need need animal liability if you don’t own one or schedule jewelry if you don’t have it.
I have a B++ market that I love and make every effort to “sell” to qualified prospects. But if the insured insists on covering their pool cage for hurricane exposure, then Citizens may actually have better rates and coverages in some specific instances.
A blog on Sinkhole Coverage in Florida by these 2 senators:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emA4xuyi16g