If the bill continues to allow full replacement for hurricane losses, regardless of roof age, then it doesn’t go far enough. Unlike other structural portions and fixed interior items in the home, the roof deteriorates and reaches a point where it can no longer perform it’s intended function – keeping moisture out. I fully understand Mr. Rouson’s concern that low income and elderly homeowners are affected by this but isn’t that always the case when it comes to home maintenance? Low-income homeowners will always have more trouble replacing an aging roof but that doesn’t mean it’s the insurance companies job either.
I know we don’t always agree, but I fully agree with you here SWFL Agent. Leaving that one caveat in place may make the bill more palatable for some, but still leaves a significant loophole historically subjected to abuse in place for the Industry. They throw us a bone only for it to be a chicken wing bone.
Their efforts are puny and futile. The bad guys own the state and they’re rotten to the core.
Moreover, these disputes wind up in the courts and the courts are thoroughly debauched.
What concerns me most about this law is that the burden falls directly upon the shoulders of the homeowner, when it seems that the burden should be on State of Florida Consumer Protection law. I have read that most of the problem
“has been driven over the last few years by fraudulent roofing schemes, fraudulent roofing claims, and frivolous lawsuits” according to Mark Friedlander. What steps has the state taken to go after those that are at the heart of the issue? Do the insurance companies investigate these purveyors of fraudulent work?
While I completely understand the financial burdens the insurance companies face, it seems that it’s a much more complicated problem and it seems that if the state only addresses a part of it, the problem will surely continue.
One wouldn’t ask GEICO to replace their tires when they’re worn out, why are we asking a home insurance company to replace a roof? The fraud is directly related to permissive policy language. In almost every state you get ACV or a schedule for your roof. They don’t have these organized fraud schemes. Coincidence?
I’d ask Geico to replace my tires, regardless of age, if I hit a piece of lumber in the road that damaged the tired/rims. That’s a covered collision loss. If half my roof blows off in a hurricane, it should be replaced. If the roof was in poor condition before the hurricane, there should be an inspection and underwriter declining to cover the house before the hurricane shows up. Florida has an underwriting issue, not a coverage issue. How about some of these small, money losing insurance companies start accepting only unbound applications future effective dated by 20 or more days – plenty of time to exterior inspect and accept or deny the risk. That also weeds out the “I need coverage yesterday” consumer that doesn’t plan ahead…
Just a thought… seems prudent and profitable to me…
Mark, I am not sure that Geico would purchase a new tire for you in this scenario. Typically, most auto insures will depreciate tires just like they would the vehicle on a total loss. The prior inspection is not a bad idea. However the inspection occurs at the beginning of the policy and insurers would like to write & retain clients for a long period of time. Over time the roof’s condition will deteriorate. So what’s the option? Non-renew the client after a period of time because the RC option on the roof will undoubtedly lead to a new roof or keep the client because policy has ACV option. Let’s be realistic here – when asked about plans for roof replacement, the majority of homeowners will state that their plan is to let the insurance company replace the roof after a storm. Owning a home is expensive. Too often we’re seeing new home buyers that will purchase a home with 5yrs life expectancy on the roof place and have no plans or reserves for roof replacement.
Mark, You can ask GEICO for anything you want, doesn’t change the contract.
As for the roof in a hurricane, the issue is not “half the roof blowing off.” It’s a handful of shingles here, some lifting there, some mysterious “hail damage” over there, and all of a sudden the whole roof needs to be replaced.
And the underwriting issue, what do you think is going on right now? Companies have shut down applications for roofs over 5 years old in some cases. You don’t even need to future date a policy, they cancel within the first few weeks anyway. They aren’t concerned with a claim in the first 60 days, that’s extremely rare, so that solves nothing.
Mark you probably don’t work in insurance at least I hope you don’t. If the tire is past it’s useful life you’ll get your claim denied in its entirety. Go ahead, open your personal auto policy, and read it.
If the bill continues to allow full replacement for hurricane losses, regardless of roof age, then it doesn’t go far enough. Unlike other structural portions and fixed interior items in the home, the roof deteriorates and reaches a point where it can no longer perform it’s intended function – keeping moisture out. I fully understand Mr. Rouson’s concern that low income and elderly homeowners are affected by this but isn’t that always the case when it comes to home maintenance? Low-income homeowners will always have more trouble replacing an aging roof but that doesn’t mean it’s the insurance companies job either.
I know we don’t always agree, but I fully agree with you here SWFL Agent. Leaving that one caveat in place may make the bill more palatable for some, but still leaves a significant loophole historically subjected to abuse in place for the Industry. They throw us a bone only for it to be a chicken wing bone.
Bad day for the PA’s.
This didn’t age well.
Their efforts are puny and futile. The bad guys own the state and they’re rotten to the core.
Moreover, these disputes wind up in the courts and the courts are thoroughly debauched.
What concerns me most about this law is that the burden falls directly upon the shoulders of the homeowner, when it seems that the burden should be on State of Florida Consumer Protection law. I have read that most of the problem
“has been driven over the last few years by fraudulent roofing schemes, fraudulent roofing claims, and frivolous lawsuits” according to Mark Friedlander. What steps has the state taken to go after those that are at the heart of the issue? Do the insurance companies investigate these purveyors of fraudulent work?
While I completely understand the financial burdens the insurance companies face, it seems that it’s a much more complicated problem and it seems that if the state only addresses a part of it, the problem will surely continue.
One wouldn’t ask GEICO to replace their tires when they’re worn out, why are we asking a home insurance company to replace a roof? The fraud is directly related to permissive policy language. In almost every state you get ACV or a schedule for your roof. They don’t have these organized fraud schemes. Coincidence?
I’d ask Geico to replace my tires, regardless of age, if I hit a piece of lumber in the road that damaged the tired/rims. That’s a covered collision loss. If half my roof blows off in a hurricane, it should be replaced. If the roof was in poor condition before the hurricane, there should be an inspection and underwriter declining to cover the house before the hurricane shows up. Florida has an underwriting issue, not a coverage issue. How about some of these small, money losing insurance companies start accepting only unbound applications future effective dated by 20 or more days – plenty of time to exterior inspect and accept or deny the risk. That also weeds out the “I need coverage yesterday” consumer that doesn’t plan ahead…
Just a thought… seems prudent and profitable to me…
Mark, I am not sure that Geico would purchase a new tire for you in this scenario. Typically, most auto insures will depreciate tires just like they would the vehicle on a total loss. The prior inspection is not a bad idea. However the inspection occurs at the beginning of the policy and insurers would like to write & retain clients for a long period of time. Over time the roof’s condition will deteriorate. So what’s the option? Non-renew the client after a period of time because the RC option on the roof will undoubtedly lead to a new roof or keep the client because policy has ACV option. Let’s be realistic here – when asked about plans for roof replacement, the majority of homeowners will state that their plan is to let the insurance company replace the roof after a storm. Owning a home is expensive. Too often we’re seeing new home buyers that will purchase a home with 5yrs life expectancy on the roof place and have no plans or reserves for roof replacement.
Mark, You can ask GEICO for anything you want, doesn’t change the contract.
As for the roof in a hurricane, the issue is not “half the roof blowing off.” It’s a handful of shingles here, some lifting there, some mysterious “hail damage” over there, and all of a sudden the whole roof needs to be replaced.
And the underwriting issue, what do you think is going on right now? Companies have shut down applications for roofs over 5 years old in some cases. You don’t even need to future date a policy, they cancel within the first few weeks anyway. They aren’t concerned with a claim in the first 60 days, that’s extremely rare, so that solves nothing.
Mark you probably don’t work in insurance at least I hope you don’t. If the tire is past it’s useful life you’ll get your claim denied in its entirety. Go ahead, open your personal auto policy, and read it.