I am not sure what this will do. We run cost estimators and have conversations with clients in order to properly insure our clients. I know clients are always trying to low ball their coverages since they say nothing will ever happen to me. This is an ongoing struggle with clients educating our clients. Then the next agent comes along and low balls the coverage and the client goes with them. So will the insurers just run new cost estimators and increase coverage automatically???? If so clients will be screaming insurers are trying to rip them off.
Try to get the Industry to adopt a standard cost estimator. Try to get the Industry to adopt a uniform inflation guard. Try to get the Industry to adopt a common extend replacement cost percentage. I know carriers want to differentiate, for marketing, branding, and competitive purposes. But having common, uniform standards for these things makes sense. Similarly to how carriers require odometer reading for auto vehicle mileage, at least in California the Industry must agree on and adopt standards which are universal between & among them.
How very socialist of you. This country was built on free enterprise and its economy rewards innovation. There is absolutely a need for regulation to ensure compliance with at least minimum standards and to guard against businesses skirting compliance under the guise of innovation (Hi Uber and Airbnb!), but let the market operate at least somewhat freely so that consumers can choose the level of service and protection they want.
I realize state employees have enough trouble trying to cram 20 hours of work into a 36 hour work week, but making every homeowners insurance carrier in the state operate exactly the same way is not good for the health of the market in the long run.
As an aside, your statement “Similarly [sic] to how carriers require odometer reading for auto vehicle mileage” leads me to believe you have little knowledge of how the personal auto market operates.
Was in the Industry here in CA for almost four years until Prop. 103. I’ve sold tens of thousands of Policies. I don’t agree with using mileage and odometer readings like the Industry does, as I think driving record and driving experience are more reliable measures of how some drives. However, having a uniform standard by which any carrier or homeowner can all agree on a similar cost per square foot to rebuild makes sense to me. Medicare and Social Security are two socialistic programs which are standardized and which work well (Social Security since 1935).
This is really pointless legislation. All it requires is that the carrier provide the insured with a copy of their policy if requested. Most folks already have access to digital copies of their policy 24/7 via their carriers website. Feel free to read this riveting legilsation here.. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1799
I do agree with SacFlood and do not believe it is socialist in concept. The variance especially in soft markets between carriers valuations is very significant. I have seen some of the new exclusive agencies market their differences using low valuations of home replacement cost. If there was some sort of uniformity and guarantee for the consumer that they are covered for the full loss then the competition would be based on more legitimate factors such as efficiency of operations, service, financial strength, extra coverages, etc. If customers are receiving nearly the same product (full compensation for property lost) then that is closer to the full competition model defining capitalism.
1, Many of the underinsured in the October fires only had what was required by the lender. 2. In an area with many homes burned, the replacement cost is going to be 2-3 times what the cost to rebuild was before the wide-spread damage. This does not take in to account an extended replacement cost endorsement, nor does having the additional coverage mean the property is adequately insured.
3. Companies/Agents are already supposed to review cost estimators with clients. They look at them and rarely say it is not enough.
4. Meanwhile tariffs are increasing the cost of basic building supplies independently from any increased demand resulting from a disaster.
Our customers/Clients do not want to hear that they may be in a high risk area, whether it is flood or wild fire or earthquake. They really don’t want to learn what they’re spending their premium dollars for. It is too bad that many turn around and buy insurance like a commodity – cheapest price they can find instead of the proper coverages and limits to protect their assets.
I am not sure what this will do. We run cost estimators and have conversations with clients in order to properly insure our clients. I know clients are always trying to low ball their coverages since they say nothing will ever happen to me. This is an ongoing struggle with clients educating our clients. Then the next agent comes along and low balls the coverage and the client goes with them. So will the insurers just run new cost estimators and increase coverage automatically???? If so clients will be screaming insurers are trying to rip them off.
Try to get the Industry to adopt a standard cost estimator. Try to get the Industry to adopt a uniform inflation guard. Try to get the Industry to adopt a common extend replacement cost percentage. I know carriers want to differentiate, for marketing, branding, and competitive purposes. But having common, uniform standards for these things makes sense. Similarly to how carriers require odometer reading for auto vehicle mileage, at least in California the Industry must agree on and adopt standards which are universal between & among them.
How very socialist of you. This country was built on free enterprise and its economy rewards innovation. There is absolutely a need for regulation to ensure compliance with at least minimum standards and to guard against businesses skirting compliance under the guise of innovation (Hi Uber and Airbnb!), but let the market operate at least somewhat freely so that consumers can choose the level of service and protection they want.
I realize state employees have enough trouble trying to cram 20 hours of work into a 36 hour work week, but making every homeowners insurance carrier in the state operate exactly the same way is not good for the health of the market in the long run.
As an aside, your statement “Similarly [sic] to how carriers require odometer reading for auto vehicle mileage” leads me to believe you have little knowledge of how the personal auto market operates.
Was in the Industry here in CA for almost four years until Prop. 103. I’ve sold tens of thousands of Policies. I don’t agree with using mileage and odometer readings like the Industry does, as I think driving record and driving experience are more reliable measures of how some drives. However, having a uniform standard by which any carrier or homeowner can all agree on a similar cost per square foot to rebuild makes sense to me. Medicare and Social Security are two socialistic programs which are standardized and which work well (Social Security since 1935).
This is really pointless legislation. All it requires is that the carrier provide the insured with a copy of their policy if requested. Most folks already have access to digital copies of their policy 24/7 via their carriers website. Feel free to read this riveting legilsation here.. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1799
I do agree with SacFlood and do not believe it is socialist in concept. The variance especially in soft markets between carriers valuations is very significant. I have seen some of the new exclusive agencies market their differences using low valuations of home replacement cost. If there was some sort of uniformity and guarantee for the consumer that they are covered for the full loss then the competition would be based on more legitimate factors such as efficiency of operations, service, financial strength, extra coverages, etc. If customers are receiving nearly the same product (full compensation for property lost) then that is closer to the full competition model defining capitalism.
1, Many of the underinsured in the October fires only had what was required by the lender. 2. In an area with many homes burned, the replacement cost is going to be 2-3 times what the cost to rebuild was before the wide-spread damage. This does not take in to account an extended replacement cost endorsement, nor does having the additional coverage mean the property is adequately insured.
3. Companies/Agents are already supposed to review cost estimators with clients. They look at them and rarely say it is not enough.
4. Meanwhile tariffs are increasing the cost of basic building supplies independently from any increased demand resulting from a disaster.
Our customers/Clients do not want to hear that they may be in a high risk area, whether it is flood or wild fire or earthquake. They really don’t want to learn what they’re spending their premium dollars for. It is too bad that many turn around and buy insurance like a commodity – cheapest price they can find instead of the proper coverages and limits to protect their assets.