Florida insurance controversies

[Smiling JOe]

Response to SJ:
In proportion to the number of units insured there probably would be a higher percentage of homes on or very near the beach (lets say within a block -this I agree is arbitrary but probably as accurate as the insurance company criteria) exceeding the 2% deductible than those further inland.

Of course there are more inland claims than from those closest the beach front. There are also considerably more inland homes paying into the insurance fund to cover the losses of the inland homes.

You really don?t think that in a hurricane the percentage of homes near or on the beach exceeding the 2% deductible would far exceed the proportion of inland homes exceeding the 2% deduction?

You don?t think that $ losses would come disproportionately from homes on or close to the beach front?

You don?t think that if you pooled the beach homes separately from inland homes that the beach front pool would experience significantly more % of dollar losses?

You really don?t think that insurance rates could be lower
if beach homes were not in the pool?

...

Regarding your first paragraph, yes, that is true. However, we are not talking about proportions. We are talking total costs of damaged homes. I don't disagree with those statements, but in your original post, you did not mention anything about "proportionally speaking."

For the rest of the chatter, please stop trying to tell me what I think. You are making statements, not phrasing quesitons.

 

[ecopal]

Regarding your first paragraph, yes, that is true. However, we are not talking about proportions. We are talking total costs of damaged homes. I don't disagree with those statements, but in your original post, you did not mention anything about "proportionally speaking."

For the rest of the chatter, please stop trying to tell me what I think. You are making statements, not phrasing quesitons.

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

I was just attempting to exchange ideas and seek clarification of your opinions.

I hope you enjoy your vacation, it appears that you need one.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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

I was just attempting to exchange ideas and seek clarification of your opinions.

I hope you enjoy your vacation, it appears that you need one.

Yes, you are just trying to exchange ideas. Right! This is not the first time you have suggested to put words in my mouth. It gets old very quickly. ;-)

 

[ecopal]

Yes, you are just trying to exchange ideas. Right! This is not the first time you have suggested to put words in my mouth. It gets old very quickly. ;-)

You are acting a little bizarre.
I really don't know what you are talking about or the relevance of it to this thread.

 

[Smiling JOe]

You are acting a little bizarre.
I really don't know what you are talking about or the relevance of it to this thread.

You are right. I am beginning to sound like two other people. I really need to stop hanging out with you guys -- I may be getting a bad reputation by association. Back to...whatever the topic was -- Insurance Controversies.

 

[TooFarTampa]

You don?t think that if you pooled the beach homes separately from inland homes that the beach front pool would experience significantly more % of dollar losses?

One thing that strikes me as odd about this idea is that there already is a separate pool for beach front (or coastal area) homes. It's called flood insurance. Many coastal homeowners are required to carry it depending on elevation -- as they should, because storm surge in general is more dangerous and powerful than hurricane winds.

I would venture to guess that most of the inland homes that got socked by strong winds as hurricanes crossed the state don't carry flood insurance. Along the coastlines, while winds may have caused similar damage, what really gets the coastal homes is the storm surge, which is covered by flood insurance not wind insurance, despite what the lawyers in New Orleans and Mississippi have tried to argue since Katrina. A hurricane (wind event) may cause the storm surge, but the policies are written as such that damage from the surge itself is covered by flood insurance and NOT the wind policies.

There are homes being canceled which are no more at risk for wind damage than some that remain privately insured. I feel the criteria for SARFWD should be defined and applied more fairly to determine insurance rates and cancellations.

There is nothing fair or standardized about what is happening here. Two bad hurricane seasons and most companies are turning tail and leaving because their private companies forsee few profits and tons of headaches. In order to "fix" this situation, the entire system and possibly the laws of the state of Florida are going to have to change, from what I can tell.

 

[ecopal]

One thing that strikes me as odd about this idea is that there already is a separate pool for beach front (or coastal area) homes. It's called flood insurance. Many coastal homeowners are required to carry it depending on elevation -- as they should, because storm surge in general is more dangerous and powerful than hurricane winds.

I would venture to guess that most of the inland homes that got socked by strong winds as hurricanes crossed the state don't carry flood insurance. Along the coastlines, while winds may have caused similar damage, what really gets the coastal homes is the storm surge, which is covered by flood insurance not wind insurance, despite what the lawyers in New Orleans and Mississippi have tried to argue since Katrina. A hurricane (wind event) may cause the storm surge, but the policies are written as such that damage from the surge itself is covered by flood insurance and NOT the wind policies.....

Thanks for your helpful input.

My post was only referring to the windstorm pool.
The concern over insurance cancellations and rate increases that I am most familiar with have primarily been for windstorm.

However, I am now hearing that flood zones are being revised resulting in much higher premiums in some areas. A friend told me that homes in Miramar beach just had a major rate hike for flood. They are apparently designated as a barrier island there.

I agree that storm surge causes considerably more damage than wind. In Mississippi that was readily apparent-not to mention N.O.

I also feel that many beach front homes that are properly built and engineered to the new codes are in more danger of being washed away by storm surge than blown appart by hurricane winds.


In Katrina homes 5 miles inland in Mississippi were flooded by storm surge because they were near inlets or bayous which acted as a funnel that actually pushed the surge level up as it went up the inlets. This could be a problem in areas like Ft. Walton Beach, the Bay, and some coastal lakes along 30a.Probably many more people should be buying flood insurance.


Fortunately most areas on 30A are blessed with elevations of over 30 feet. In fact 30A has the highest coastal elevations in the south and entire Gulf coast and Florida.

 

[TooFarTampa]

Thanks for your helpful input.

My post was only referring to the windstorm pool.
The concern over insurance cancellations and rate increases that I am most familiar with have primarily been for windstorm.

However, I am now hearing that flood zones are being revised resulting in much higher premiums in some areas. A friend told me that homes in Miramar beach just had a major rate hike for flood. They are apparently designated as a barrier island there.

I agree that storm surge causes considerably more damage than wind. In Mississippi that was readily apparent-not to mention N.O.

I also feel that many beach front homes that are properly built and engineered to the new codes are in more danger of being washed away by storm surge than blown appart by hurricane winds.


In Katrina homes 5 miles inland in Mississippi were flooded by storm surge because they were near inlets or bayous which acted as a funnel that actually pushed the surge level up as it went up the inlets. This could be a problem in areas like Ft. Walton Beach, the Bay, and some coastal lakes along 30a.Probably many more people should be buying flood insurance.


Fortunately most areas on 30A are blessed with elevations of over 30 feet. In fact 30A has the highest coastal elevations in the south and entire Gulf coast and Florida.

Good points ecopal. I guess what I was trying to say that if someone is going to measure hurricane damage in terms of dollars and try to base future insurance rates on past damage reports, I hope the number crunchers would break out "wind damage" dollars and "flood/storm surge damage" dollars when it comes to determining the cost of wind policies for coastal homes. I would really like to know how much wind payout on the coastline there has been recently vs. inland -- since as you point out, so much of the horrible damage you see on TV on the coasts was actually caused by flooding.

Once again I do feel fortunate that we own property in SoWal, not just because of the high elevations, but because the majority of the homes are built to the newer standards. That is about as good a situation as you can have if you are looking for a little piece of paradise. But the fact remains that at least for now, the cost of insurance is going to scare a lot of people away. And we could talk about it ad nauseum and I don't have confidence that anything good will come out of it, sadly.

 

[ecopal]

Note : this is from the Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/business/arti...ne_risk_data_add_pressure_to_insurance_costs/

Below are just excerpts........

Hurricane risk data add pressure to insurance costs

By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | April 2, 2006

The hurricane computer modeling company that kick-started the crisis with coastal home insurance three years ago -- and sent rates on Cape Cod and the islands soaring -- is back with more bad news.

Risk Management Solutions now says its earlier gloom and doom about the cost of potential hurricane damage in coastal areas was far too rosy.

The California company is predicting that hurricanes will occur with much greater frequency and intensity over the next five years, and is telling insurers they need to increase their annual loss estimates by 25 percent to 30 percent in New England and the mid-Atlantic states, and 40 percent across the Gulf Coast, Florida, and Southeast.

The changes in Risk Management's computer model are expected to ripple throughout the home insurance industry, as the perceived higher hurricane risk translates into higher costs for insurers and higher premiums for owners of homes near the water........

''There's enough data and science to support the view that hurricane activity will be different from what it has been on a historical basis," said Paul VanderMarck, executive vice president at Risk Management.Hurricane risk data add pressure to insurance costs

.....
Until three years ago, homeowners along the Massachusetts coast paid little attention to hurricane models and reinsurance costs. But that all changed when Risk Management tweaked its computer model and significantly increased the damage estimates from a hurricane striking coastal areas.

The new model convinced reinsurance companies, the firms that insure insurance companies against catastrophic events, that their risk was much greater than they had previously thought. That prompted them to increase their rates dramatically, which forced local insurers to charge customers higher premiums to offset the higher cost of reinsurance.

Some regional insurers, including the Andover Cos., Hingham Mutual Group, Vermont Mutual, and Quincy Mutual Insurance Co., went further, concluding the risk of doing business on the Cape and islands was simply too great. The companies scaled back their business in coastal areas or walked away entirely.



Most hurricane models use historical data to forecast hurricane frequency and intensity, but Risk Management says that approach is no longer sufficient.

.......

Kerry A. Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who served on a four-member panel of specialists consulted by Risk Management, said there are two schools of thought about Atlantic hurricane activity.


One school holds that hurricane activity rises and falls in multidecade cycles, with the Atlantic currently in an active cycle that is expected to last another 10 to 20 years. The other school of thought holds that climate warming is changing hurricane dynamics, and the ups and downs of the past are giving way to a more stable trend line that will increase long-term risks for insurers.

Emanuel says he supports the more pessimistic view. ''If it is correct," he said in an e-mail, ''there is then no reason to expect a decadal time-scale downturn in Atlantic hurricane activity."

AIR Worldwide of Boston, the other major hurricane modeling company, takes a more traditional approach, relying on long-term historical data to predict hurricane losses, and sees no need to alter its approach.

.......


Time may be running out. AccuWeather.com, a Pennsylvania-based commercial weather service, earlier this month said conditions are ripe for a devastating hurricane of the magnitude that struck New England in 1938, leaving 600 dead.

''We're not saying New England is going to get hit this year. What we are saying is that the threat is increasing," said Ken Reeves, director of forecasting operations. ''It's not out of the realm of possibility that there could be Katrina-like damage."

Bruce Mohl can be reached at mohl@globe.com.
? Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

You are right. I am beginning to sound like two other people. I really need to stop hanging out with you guys -- I may be getting a bad reputation by association. Back to...whatever the topic was -- Insurance Controversies.

Hey ..... hey... HOLD ON THERE !!!!

I resemble that remark !!!! :nono1:

SJ, I've been waiting to use that "you're a bad boy" smiley on you!


Just started reading this thread as insurance is a concern of everyone who owns property in this area. Just when I thought the retaining wall issue was starting to simmer down, now that most of us have expressed our views every which way but loose, I just HAD TO STUMBLE into this thread that kept me up half the night!

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY...

I can't believe ecopal is making the wind insurance thing a gulf front vs. non-gulf front issue... AS WELL !!!!!! This is just too much!

Yea, I know, I guess I'm just extremely hypersensitive to gulf front property owner bashers this time of the year.

I'm TOTALLY CONVINCED that ecopal ACTUALLY and SIMPLY hates (for lack of any other word that fits) all GF owners (see all the retaining wall thread stuff for the benefit of those who have not been following them). We're ruining the beach with our walls, etc. and now we're causing Citizens premium rates to jump up.

It's MY FAULT, as a gulf front property owner, that everyone else's wind insurance rates are going up, right?

OK let's look at the elemental logic here...
Hmmm.... I'm a gulf front property owner so my property blows down when a cat 4 hits. But there must be some magical curtain that protects the property behind me or the property behind that, etc. Uhhhh, I still can't figure that one. Someone help me here.

Here's what started this thread and reinforces my complete and absolute total disappointment for ecopal...

.....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.

I guess "such as" south of 30A or south of the bay would be pushing it in ecopal's view. Much less damage on 30A all the way to Hwy 20 when a cat 4 hits!! What the . ..?

I truly truly truly hope everyone is seeing ecopal for who he is. ecopal screwed up and revealed his totally twisted sense of logic and reason again. You don't have to understand retaining walls, erosion, turtle habitat, etc., etc., to figure this one out.

SJ, I know you don't need me (or anyone else) to back you up on this one. But this guy is gaining credibility....




AS A MAJOR PAIN in the rear!!!



Oh yea, hey Shelly I'm now also convinced that you and ecopal are cut from the same cloth....

If Citizen's worked like a "real" insurance company they would be cranking rates through the roof for Gulf front homes--or not insuring them at all. The insurance game is all about RISK....your dad IS paying to subsidize those Gulf front properties--we ALL are.

What the hell is the matter with you guys? Don't you know the difference between flood insurance (especially in the velocity zone) and wind insurance? Apparently not. It is FLOOD that can be differentiated between gulf front and non-gulf front properties. WIND is the SAME (gulf front vs non gulf front)!!!! I think Andrew, Ivan, Hugo, and on and on and on and on and on MORE THAN PROVED that.[/QUOTE]


Does ecopal and Shelly really believe the stuff they're writing? I don't and I don't think 99% of the "edcuated" masses here believe it either.


Wait a minute! "GOSH BMBVagrant, you sure are being hard on our pal echopal. What axe do you have to grind with him?"


Just simply read some of the stuff he's posted on the "Seawall", "Geotubes in TX" and the "Seawall Audio/Video" thread. I specifically challenged him on several points. One of his responses was that he could not believe that my posts were tolerated on this website. Basically if he can't win, he'll take his ball home. Please see for yourself. It was painfully evident to me there that he was a gulf-front property owner basher.

Oh here's another winner.....
SJ, called echopal on the bad analogy, and very logically I might add...

Originally Posted by Smiling JOe
Both ecopal and Shelly are suggesting that only Beach Front owners are causing these assessments. Have you not noticed that almost the entire Florida penisula has been hit hard with storms the last two years? Hello, you can pull your heads out of the sand now. With State Farm, Allstate and Nation Wide not isuing new policies for homes located within 2000 ft of the Gulf or 500 ft from the Bay or major bayous, Citizens may be the only choice for homeowners in those areas. Sure, that is beach front relative to lets say Kentucky!, but it is not really beach front, now is it?

Then ecopal responds...

....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 suppose it depends on ecopal's meaning of the word "such". IMHO, ecopal, is just, well, "too much" (how's that, Kurt?). I have never seen anyone back pedal as fast as he did after SJ's challenge.

BTW, if SJ's reaction is knee jerk in nature, I guess ecopal would consider my reaction a meltdown. Maybe that's his objective. Are you guys setting me up????

Then on top of that ecopal also said...

....A home close to the beach is more likely to experience a greater degree of damage. That would increase the likelihood of a home closer to the beach exceeding its 2% deductible and tapping into the Citizens insurance fund. Most of us further back may never meet our 2% deductibles if we were built to the recent codes.

What physics book has ecopal been reading lately? Since SJ obviously missed the meaning of "such as" (in your view), what the heck is your definition of "further back"? One house? Two homes? One block? One mile? Ten miles? Gosh, sounds a lot like a question I asked ecopal about how "much" was much when it came to sand lost last week at BMB that ecopal photographed, posted, stated his negativity and then FAILED to QUALIFY that picture in ANY WAY, even after he was repeatedly challenged. Why in the heck would he think those that are non-gulf front are more significantly immune than gulf-front? Otherwise the wind insurance difference is a complete non-issue within a large area of COASTAL property (not just gulf front).

ecopal is losing total credibility and rapidly. He should stick to turtles and such as his name suggests. They won't challenge him.

I did however see two turtles talking to one another (by my retaining wall BTW) and laughing and pointing at some guy taking pictures up and down the beach.... oh wait a minute.... that was me they were laughing at.

This wind insurance thing... just another vain attempt in echopal's repertoire of "ways to bash and discredit" gulf front property owners as well as create division between GF and non-GF neighbors. Does it make him feel good? What the heck is his true motivation? I'll buy anyone dinner (my choice where however ) who can convince me they have the true answer, even if you don't own gulf-front :funn: .

I won't even bother asking ecopal directly, as he left me "high and dry" (retaining wall / bluff pun intended) on the other thread by not responding to my very direct questions!

Enough of this for now.

BTW, I did just check to see if ecopal started this post on April's fool day. If so, then I was just "had"..... nope started on March 30th. Must be his true color.

Sorry SJ, for addressing this post to you. But the more of this thread I read, the "crazier" I got. I hope you can understand. Continue the insurance crusade, at least.

Thanks!