Florida insurance controversies

Criminy!! The attacks get so old BMBV! Irregardless of who one agrees with on whichever point or whatever subject, you only lose credibility with the flaming and attacks. I thought Kurt asked us not to FLAME..

We need a new emoticon, Kurt..................

You're right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

I agree Rita, the superfluous attacks and sarcasm serve no purpose to anyone but the poster. It makes the post too cumbersome to even read and psychologically creates a bias against the poster so that their points aren't considered on their merit. Some information without all the distraction would be nice and would better present their thoughts to an open-minded audience.

You're also right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

You're right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

Ecopal, or any FLAMING poster, tends to lose some credibility with flaming and attacks.

Ask shelly ... we've called her/him on this before. She/He stops for a while then is back at it..... Sorta like some of us who do "drive-by posting" - (Allifunn's new saying. )

All insurance questions answered with YouTube - Fatty Dance.

Thank you Chick pea, you have summarized the problem well.

It would be nice to be able to post ideas without being personally attacked and having one's opinions misrepresented and distorted.

You're probably right as well.

Why do you hide behind a one sentence response to my concerns?

Are you incapable of engaging me on a one to one basis regarding your continual gulf-front bashing escapade that I believe you're on?

Don't let the likes of Chickpea, Rita & Cork fight the battles that you have very deliberately chosen.

OK, I'm a freakin' flamer. Don't try to take the easy way out by hiding because of my very impassioned tone. There's a good reason for it (maybe you know already?). You still haven't defended your posts in any real satisfaction to me or to SJ (I'll reach here regarding SJ based on the thread).

I "detected" it on the retaining wall threads. I absolutely observed it on this thread although you attempted to back pedal once confronted. Smiling JOe observed it, called you on it and then you had the nerve to tell him, "Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post ."

"I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said ?such as the beach front?. "

"I feel that the assumption that all beach front homes are the most at risk for hurricane wind damage than some of those further inland is faulty. "

"However before I pursue this defense of BF homes I should respond to SJ. "

"My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?"

"You are acting a little bizarre."


Ecopal, please, can you not do better than that? You said that SJ was having knee jerk reactions and acting tempermental, defensive and bizzare.

What part of that is not flaming SJ during the factual exchange coming from SJ?

Simply put.... You can dish it but you can't take it and neither can your supporters. I didn't see too many people jumping in defending Smiling JOe when you were slamming him. To his credit, and I admit, he controlled himself most admirably. Where was Chickpea, Rita and Corky then?

Do you want to try a civil exchange? I do. Simply put, I'm flamed out and maybe this is what really bothers you. That by my presenting just facts (with a twist of flame ), which for the most part I've done, you can't hide behind the aprons of your "supporters".

I'll just simply ask a couple of direct questions here and now that I FULLY expect a reply to. Do you take issues with gulf-front property owners? If not, why on earth would you start this thread with a post like you did.... implying that everyone else has to subsidize other at risk property owners' premiums, "such as beachfront" property owners' wind insurance premiums?

Simple question. No flamming here. BALL's in your court.

BTW, did you ever answer my other questions on the other threads? If you have, I can't find them.

You're also right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

This is not a contest. There's no ball in anyones court. Nobody wins. I have no negative comments about anyone. I am only asking that we all be respectful and keep the threads on topic. What the other one person did or did not do is not the topic.

All insurance questions answered with this clip.

:funn: :rofl: :funn: :funn:

You're twisted!

You're probably right as well.

Why do you hide behind a one sentence response to my concerns?

Are you incapable of engaging me on a one to one basis regarding your continual gulf-front bashing escapade that I believe you're on?

Don't let the likes of Chickpea, Rita & Cork fight the battles that you have very deliberately chosen.

OK, I'm a freakin' flamer. Don't try to take the easy way out by hiding because of my very impassioned tone. There's a good reason for it (maybe you know already?). You still haven't defended your posts in any real satisfaction to me or to SJ (I'll reach here regarding SJ based on the thread).

I "detected" it on the retaining wall threads. I absolutely observed it on this thread although you attempted to back pedal once confronted. Smiling JOe observed it, called you on it and then you had the nerve to tell him, "Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post ."

"I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said ?such as the beach front?. "

"I feel that the assumption that all beach front homes are the most at risk for hurricane wind damage than some of those further inland is faulty. "

"However before I pursue this defense of BF homes I should respond to SJ. "

"My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?"

"You are acting a little bizarre."


Ecopal, please, can you not do better than that? You said that SJ was having knee jerk reactions and acting tempermental, defensive and bizzare.

What part of that is not flaming SJ during the factual exchange coming from SJ?

Simply put.... You can dish it but you can't take it and neither can your supporters. I didn't see too many people jumping in defending Smiling JOe when you were slamming him. To his credit, and I admit, he controlled himself most admirably. Where was Chickpea, Rita and Corky then?

Do you want to try a civil exchange? I do. Simply put, I'm flamed out and maybe this is what really bothers you. That by my presenting just facts (with a twist of flame ), which for the most part I've done, you can't hide behind the aprons of your "supporters".

I'll just simply ask a couple of direct questions here and now that I FULLY expect a reply to. Do you take issues with gulf-front property owners? If not, why on earth would you start this thread with a post like you did.... implying that everyone else has to subsidize other at risk property owners' premiums, "such as beachfront" property owners' wind insurance premiums?

Simple question. No flamming here. BALL's in your court.

BTW, did you ever answer my other questions on the other threads? If you have, I can't find them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMBV,
We are all here and still interested in the issues at hand but not remotely engaged by your attacks on Ecopal. I have read all the threads, some posts more carefully than others (and in the spirit of total honesty will tell you that I do not know who Ecopal is) and I do not reach the same conclusions you do regarding your stance that Ecopal dislikes or resents gulf front property owners. I read his posts, like I did yours originally with genuine curiosity and interest in the topic at hand and read no personal vendetta. I do not speak for Rita or Cork as I od not know them either but I do appreciate their frustration. And I would venture to say that it is not that we are "supporters" of any camp, but that we are tired of reading rambling posts that veer way off topic.

As SJ stated, please PM each other with your pointed questions.

As I previously said, I can appreciate the position you are in and you were in the unique advantage(?)/disadvantage (?) of being a beach front owner who had to grapple with issues most of us did not have to and it does seem that you followed guidelines and protocol afforded you by DEP and resorted to a seawall as a last resort. However, that does not mean that our concerns for our collective beaches are not justified. I spent over a half hour at work yesterday debating with others the insurance quandry as well as whether renourishment even works or whether we should just leave nature alone. Counterintuitive perhaps but those in that camp can make as compelling an argument as those who fervently wish to lessen the possible continued erosion of our dunes. All in all a healthy debate that I hope we will not be tested on this season or any in the immediate future.

Thank you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMBV,
.....I spent over a half hour at work yesterday debating with others the insurance quandry as well as whether renourishment even works or whether we should just leave nature alone. Counterintuitive perhaps but those in that camp can make as compelling an argument as those who fervently wish to lessen the possible continued erosion of our dunes. All in all a healthy debate that I hope we will not be tested on this season or any in the immediate future.

Thank you.

Dear Chickpea,

A very genuine post and very thoughtful post... ALL points well taken. A sincere thank you, as I know you have put significant thought into it, discussed it here and with others and actually taken significant time to clearly share your views.

Also as you have shared with us based on your experiences at work, there ARE 2 sides to every issue.

Yes, I admit that I have issues with ecopal. I'm not shy about showing it as you can see. If you are a beachfront property owner it probably is very apparent. If you're not, I can see where you may not have the same perspective (we) do when reading some of these posts from ecopal. That part is understood. I'm here to speak up (at least for myself).

Again, I am sensitive when anyone makes direct reference to all beachfront owners for all the beach related problems and now for implying that everyone else's wind insurance rates to go up.

Again, ecopal TRIED to qualify his statement, AFTER Smiling JOe challenged him.

Ecopal used the wrong words by saying "such as beachfront" when he knows he should have said "such as coastal properties" when it comes to properties at risk for wind damage. Again, a BIG BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.

I used the words "freudian slip" in a question to ecopal as I feel they are apropos in the case of the first post of this thread by ecopal:
Talking about Citizens Insurance increasing wind insurance premiums increasing...

"So essentially that surcharge is like a tax imposed on those to live in less hazardous areas of Florida to subsidize those who built in more hazardous areas such as on the beachfront."

As Smiling JOe implied, what is really less hazardous as it comes to wind risks? There were several hurricanes that caused wind damage well inland AS WELL as on the beachfront, pure and simple. Once more, we're talking wind, not flood (two seperate insurance policies).

It's just that I see an extreme "stretched" referral to "such as on the beachfront" laced with agenda all over it.

I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Either you understand and agree with my point or you don't.

If it was just this thread I probably would just ignore it and let it go.

Chickpea, you deserve words of praise for your thoughtful reply.

Thank you.
BMBV

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Did anyone else hear that one of the bills before the Fla. legislature would allow insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do. I'd like to write my local representatives but want to have a well-worded letter.

The only thing I can think of is that second homeowners are less likely to be there to board up their properties. Otherwise it reeks of discrimination.

Can anyone tell me why it is so hard to just consider a home's location, construction style and size and come up with a fair rate based on those factors alone? Why does it have to be so difficult? That's what insurance people are supposed to do -- measure risk. I don't get it.

I have not heard that, but it is an interesting thing to look into.

Typically in the past, second homes were less expensive to insure. I ask my agent about that and he said less valuables are in second homes than in primary residences. THAT made sense to me.

But, nothing the insurance companies do anymore holds much logic.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Did anyone else hear that one of the bills before the Fla. legislature would allow insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do.

That's a proposal by Citizen's--Florida State's insurer of last resort.

Since the state is tapping ALL Florida homeowers (regardless of insurance company) to pay an additional 6% (and another 10% later on) to pull this dog out of the ditch AND they are proposing to divert some of our state's revenue (funds that should go to roads and schools) for good measure--they don't want to give the impression that we're substidizing the costs of someone's (especially out-of-staters) investment properties.

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Did anyone else hear that one of the bills before the Fla. legislature would allow insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do. I'd like to write my local representatives but want to have a well-worded letter.

The only thing I can think of is that second homeowners are less likely to be there to board up their properties. Otherwise it reeks of discrimination.

Can anyone tell me why it is so hard to just consider a home's location, construction style and size and come up with a fair rate based on those factors alone? Why does it have to be so difficult? That's what insurance people are supposed to do -- measure risk. I don't get it.

I think I got something on it. Let me check the mountain of emails in my box and see if I can find it. Glad to be on topic again.

...insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do....it reeks of discrimination.

It is. But it's a politically popular form of discrimination.

People who own second homes in Florida are perceived by the general public as being "rich". It is considered by many to be only fair for the "rich" to not just pay more but to actually pay higher rates for things like insurance and taxes in order to subsidize everyone else.

And please don't bother to jump on and post about how owning a second home does not make you rich. I already know that. I'm not the one you need to convince.

It is. But it's a politically popular form of discrimination.

People who own second homes in Florida are perceived by the general public as being "rich". It is considered by many to be only fair for the "rich" to not just pay more but to actually pay higher rates for things like insurance and taxes in order to subsidize everyone else.

And please don't bother to jump on and post about how owning a second home does not make you rich. I already know that. I'm not the one you need to convince.

"Rich" as in the eyes of a person living in a FEMA trailer?

That's a proposal by Citizen's--Florida State's insurer of last resort.

Since the state is tapping ALL Florida homeowers (regardless of insurance company) to pay an additional 6% (and another 10% later on) to pull this dog out of the ditch AND they are proposing to divert some of our state's revenue (funds that should go to roads and schools) for good measure--they don't want to give the impression that we're substidizing the costs of someone's (especially out-of-staters) investment properties.

Shelly, Citizens calls itself the insurer of last resort, but as we all know for many inland and coastal properties it is the ONLY available insurer. It is no longer an accurate moniker by any means.

Jeb Bush has proposed a one-time Citizens bailout so homeowners won't have to pay next year's 10 percent surcharge. Read that yesterday in the St. Pete Times. He will only do that on the condition that the laws change to make coverage and rates more fair and to bring in more insurers to balance things out. It makes sense to me. I would MUCH rather see a Citizens bailout than some other tax break or the silly sales tax holiday again. It just makes more fiscal sense. Reset the darn thing and make it work from here on out.

I have not heard that, but it is an interesting thing to look into.

Typically in the past, second homes were less expensive to insure. I ask my agent about that and he said less valuables are in second homes than in primary residences. THAT made sense to me.

But, nothing the insurance companies do anymore holds much logic.

That is an interesting point Yippie. Our primary residence and our beach investment property would cost approximately the same to rebuild, if you take market factors into consideration. But I guarantee you the stuff inside our primary home is worth 10 times that of what is in the rental house.

"Rich" as in the eyes of a person living in a FEMA trailer?

I'm not following you. What exactly is your question?

"Rich" as in the eyes of a person living in a FEMA trailer?

There is no doubt it's all relative. That's why the only fair way to do things is ... well, structure the rates fairly. As I've said, that's what actuaries are for. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you slice it.

I'm not following you. What exactly is your question?

It's rhetorical.

Jeb Bush has proposed a one-time Citizens bailout so homeowners won't have to pay next year's 10 percent surcharge. Read that yesterday in the St. Pete Times. He will only do that on the condition that the laws change to make coverage and rates more fair and to bring in more insurers to balance things out. It makes sense to me. I would MUCH rather see a Citizens bailout than some other tax break or the silly sales tax holiday again. It just makes more fiscal sense. Reset the darn thing and make it work from here on out.

I agree on your view of the "sales tax holiday." And if only given the choice between two I would get more benefit from not taking another 10% hit on my homeowners.

The horserace is on for Citizens to keep upping their premiums so they are always the "highest cost carrier in the state" now that all their "spin-off business" are asking for rate increases:
Four Home Insurers Requesting Rate Increases

This "insurance" crap keeps getting deeper and deeper. Now they're considering "dinging" our life, health and auto policies! Hurry up baby boomers...get your butts and wallets down here and help us pay for this mess!

"Floridians face 10 years of payments to replenish insurance catastrophe fund
By Kathy Bushouse
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted April 6 2006


TALLAHASSEE ? Two years of catastrophic hurricane seasons have drained the state's insurance industry, and now the reserve fund that backs up the insurers is $1.55 billion in the hole.

That means virtually all Floridians could pay for as long as 10 years to cover the fund's shortfall.

This is the first time the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, created in the wake of 1992's Hurricane Andrew, has run out of cash. And the state now is expected to take the unprecedented step of selling special bonds to raise money for home insurers to pay 2005 hurricane property damage claims.

People likely will pay an extra charge on their home, health, life and automobile policies to pay off the bond issue.

How much people would have to pay is unclear. The estimate is an annual charge of no more than 1 percent, or about $10 per $1,000 of the premium, on each of their insurance policies, said Jack Nicholson, the catastrophe fund's senior manager. Only medical malpractice and worker compensation policyholders would be exempt."

The following is an interesting article about how those that choose to live in high risk flood prone areas are being subsidized by taxpayers.

It also presents ideas for correcting that problem.

Rethinking Flood Insurance
Washington Post
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A22

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001509.html

the following are excerpts:

".... The theory of the program is that people who choose to live in areas prone to flooding should pay for that risk by buying insurance; they should not expect taxpayers around the country to rescue them from their own recklessness. ......

In a vain attempt to persuade homeowners to buy coverage, the current system is subsidized; this allows people to build houses in exposed locations and then collect a federal check when the inevitable occurs, sometimes repeatedly.

By pricing flood insurance accurately, the government would create price signals that would drive housing development to higher, drier land.

Those who remain determined to live below sea level or
on the beach -- or developers who put up low-income rental units in these places -- would pay the full cost of their preference...

Compulsory, fully priced insurance would in theory achieve the best of all worlds: It would ensure flood victims of compensation, it would protect taxpayers and it would deter risky construction......"

Question: What parts of 30-A are actually in a flood zone? Our house in Seacrest Beach is 30 feet high and certainly isn't. Our lot in Seagrove is just under 30 feet elevation and certainly isn't. I'm not sure that article is entirely relevant to the situation of most property owners in SoWal, because it seems like so few are required to carry flood insurance. Parts of Grayton? Gulf front owners?

We carry it on our house in Seacrest -- just in case -- and it is a paltry $317 a year. Our wind insurance is 10x that. I'm not sure you can argue that our flood insurance is artificially low because only a direct hit by a catastrophic storm is likely to flood our home. Of course we are 150 yards from the water. I imagine it is different for those on the dunes or one or two lots in.

Walton County has surge maps online here:

http://www.co.walton.fl.us/default.asp?ID=102

It takes some playing around to figure out the Mapping Application but in theory, all the information is there.