The $20,000 limitation is a great idea and maybe offer a buyback for a $50,000 option. I would also pass a law indicating that Homeowners Association be barred from requiring tile roofs. Some of the tile roofs are $100,000 plus and no one would replace them with tile unless the insurance company was picking up the tab.
The premium you pay is based on the materials at your property. If you have a tile roof, the carrier has ran the algos to see what the likelihood of you having a claim is and how much they may have to pay in that instance.
That means that, if you have a tile roof damage by a covered cause of loss, the carrier would have to pay you to replace that tile roof they insured.
What you’re suggesting is akin to driving a Ferrari, paying insurance for it, it gets totaled, & your insurance company pays you for a Kia. Doesn’t make any logical sense.
By the way, carriers are also pulling out of California. Not anywhere near as much litigation there as here based on the statistics, so what gives? Natural disasters affect their bottom line. Well, don’t be in the business of insurance then if you don’t want your bottom line affected when you’ve contracted with your clients to pay out.
Every consumer in the state is losing rights and getting nothing in return but increased premiums for significantly less coverage. Oh, and the carriers still aren’t paying. Just check the stats on how many open, denied, and underpaid Hurricane Ian claims remain. Actually, why don’t you check to see how many Hurricane Michael victims are still living in trailers on their properties because their houses were total losses and the carriers still haven’t paid them. It’s a joke.
And that is why we don’t write new business with tile roofs if the roof is older than 12 years old.
We, as an industry cannot require morality on the part of our customers or their contractors so we underwrite to the most immoral and unethical and that negatively affects the moral and ethical.
You can require morality. You just can’t enforce it. This is a two way street. I recently filed a claim with a date of loss Dec 13. The carrier changed the date of loss to Sept 27 and took a hurricane deductible. The loss was on the east coast. The hurricane was on the west coast.
Well, if your mortgage company wants you to insure the house to its full value, a $20,000 limit for a $75,000 roof won’t cut it. Furthermore, the policy requires you to insure your houses to at least 80% of it’s replacement cost or be penalized on your claim.
This is progress but every and all HO carriers in FL has to include it. Otherwise, as agents we have to give customers the best coverage. So, for instance, if Citizens offers “full roof” coverage then we have to at least give our clients a chance to purchase it vs. this limitation. It just won’t work any other way (all or nothing).
So does mean that a tornado that is from a typical afternoon thunderstorm can rip the roof off and because it is not a hurricane or “named” storm that it is not a covered loss? asking for a friend… Or the car the literally landed on top of a clients roof as it rounded the corner and flipped over and launched upward. How’s that $10k automobile property damage limit working for us now?
This is a poorly worded exclusion endorsement. Hurricanes don’t cause wear & tear! They cause storm damage. In FL, the insurance market is a train wreck because of the roofing contractors and attorneys (Morgan & Morgan is the biggest so they say) that represent them. They literally knock on doors and tell folks they have storm damage. The customer signs their policy cover to them and the fraud goes into action. At a certain point, the insurance company will end up paying more in litigation versus a new roof. I see roofs being replaced in my FL neighborhood that are absolutely ok. And Ian came through. Many did get damaged and have been replaced. However, many did not suffer enough storm damage to justify replacement. So, thanks – my rate went up another 49% and pretty soon everyone will end up with Citizens if real reform on roof claims isn’t instituted.
The $20,000 limitation is a great idea and maybe offer a buyback for a $50,000 option. I would also pass a law indicating that Homeowners Association be barred from requiring tile roofs. Some of the tile roofs are $100,000 plus and no one would replace them with tile unless the insurance company was picking up the tab.
Dave,
The premium you pay is based on the materials at your property. If you have a tile roof, the carrier has ran the algos to see what the likelihood of you having a claim is and how much they may have to pay in that instance.
That means that, if you have a tile roof damage by a covered cause of loss, the carrier would have to pay you to replace that tile roof they insured.
What you’re suggesting is akin to driving a Ferrari, paying insurance for it, it gets totaled, & your insurance company pays you for a Kia. Doesn’t make any logical sense.
By the way, carriers are also pulling out of California. Not anywhere near as much litigation there as here based on the statistics, so what gives? Natural disasters affect their bottom line. Well, don’t be in the business of insurance then if you don’t want your bottom line affected when you’ve contracted with your clients to pay out.
Every consumer in the state is losing rights and getting nothing in return but increased premiums for significantly less coverage. Oh, and the carriers still aren’t paying. Just check the stats on how many open, denied, and underpaid Hurricane Ian claims remain. Actually, why don’t you check to see how many Hurricane Michael victims are still living in trailers on their properties because their houses were total losses and the carriers still haven’t paid them. It’s a joke.
And that is why we don’t write new business with tile roofs if the roof is older than 12 years old.
We, as an industry cannot require morality on the part of our customers or their contractors so we underwrite to the most immoral and unethical and that negatively affects the moral and ethical.
The few hurt the many.
You can require morality. You just can’t enforce it. This is a two way street. I recently filed a claim with a date of loss Dec 13. The carrier changed the date of loss to Sept 27 and took a hurricane deductible. The loss was on the east coast. The hurricane was on the west coast.
Well, if your mortgage company wants you to insure the house to its full value, a $20,000 limit for a $75,000 roof won’t cut it. Furthermore, the policy requires you to insure your houses to at least 80% of it’s replacement cost or be penalized on your claim.
This is progress but every and all HO carriers in FL has to include it. Otherwise, as agents we have to give customers the best coverage. So, for instance, if Citizens offers “full roof” coverage then we have to at least give our clients a chance to purchase it vs. this limitation. It just won’t work any other way (all or nothing).
So does mean that a tornado that is from a typical afternoon thunderstorm can rip the roof off and because it is not a hurricane or “named” storm that it is not a covered loss? asking for a friend… Or the car the literally landed on top of a clients roof as it rounded the corner and flipped over and launched upward. How’s that $10k automobile property damage limit working for us now?
This is a poorly worded exclusion endorsement. Hurricanes don’t cause wear & tear! They cause storm damage. In FL, the insurance market is a train wreck because of the roofing contractors and attorneys (Morgan & Morgan is the biggest so they say) that represent them. They literally knock on doors and tell folks they have storm damage. The customer signs their policy cover to them and the fraud goes into action. At a certain point, the insurance company will end up paying more in litigation versus a new roof. I see roofs being replaced in my FL neighborhood that are absolutely ok. And Ian came through. Many did get damaged and have been replaced. However, many did not suffer enough storm damage to justify replacement. So, thanks – my rate went up another 49% and pretty soon everyone will end up with Citizens if real reform on roof claims isn’t instituted.