Washington Commissioner Warns Against Flooding Exclusions

October 20, 2009

  • October 20, 2009 at 7:11 am
    County Line says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Kreidler is just another in the growing list of self-aggrandizing leftists we’ve handed our country over to. Kreidler’s unquenchable thirst for power and notoriety is how this latest headline should read.

    Kreidler is trying to look like he’s sticking up for the ‘little guy’. Instead he’s simply scheming to nail down another swath of grateful voters in the affected area, assuring his future in government.

    Compared to the great many voters who could be adversely affected by the flooding, there are few voters informed enough to identify Kreidler’s end-run for what it is: Trashing of established contractual language that is foundational to the existence of the insurance industry.

    Don’t get me wrong. I do not want any of the residents or business owners in harm’s way to suffer uninsured losses, but we can’t simply rewrite contracts (insurance or otherwise) any time it feels good to do so.

    Kreidler’s precedent aims us toward a very slippery slope: Government-forced rewrites of private party contracts for what can be called ‘the greater good’. In the case of the insurers within Kreidler’s reach, all this will happen without being able to collect & reserve a penny more for the radically increased risk Kreidler wants transferred to them.

    Kreidler has a fine recipe for destabilizing the insurer(s) in his sights. They will have to sharply increase premiums to cover previously excluded losses, but of course Kreidler will block that in the name of protecting the public.

    Once he manages to drive out or bankrupt the insurers, Kreidler can sweep in with his own P&C version of a ‘public option’, further consolidating his power.

    Again, Kreidler is not concerned about offending the small voter segment who understands and therefore cannot support his views. Not when he can buy his political power at the insurers’ expense.

  • October 20, 2009 at 12:48 pm
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So the government collects water at will, then decided they will release it at will. But in order to save money decids the Insurance companies will pay for any damages, and even goes as far as to make a public campaign advertising that personal property insurers wil pay. Sounds corrupt.

  • October 20, 2009 at 1:01 am
    insurance idiot says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What about the usual exclusion for Flood?

    Why wouldn’t that continue to apply?

  • October 20, 2009 at 1:20 am
    Ed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Although the article doesn’t make it clear, I suspect he’s addressing the language of the flood policy itself. If the flood policy includes an exclusion for government-odered intentional release, he’s saying the primary cause should be seen as the unexpected accumulation from heavy rainfall, not an arbitrary decision to release the water.

  • October 20, 2009 at 2:21 am
    AgentX says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Kriedler isn’t a Judge. He can’t establish bad faith in advance nor can he decide they’ve misinterpreted their contracts. He can only bluster. Companies can deny and then a court gets to decide, including whether or not claim denials represented bad faith.

    Kriedler doesn’t give a fig about the truth of the contract language, he wants private insurers to pay for every penny they can be coerced to pay. It’s a matter of politics, purely.



Add a Comment

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

*