Florida insurance controversies

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

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.

 

[Cork On the Ocean]

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.

Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know.
Temper your sharpness. Simplify your problems.
Yield and overcome; Bend and be straight;
Wise men set an example to all.
Not putting on a display, They shine forth.
Not justifying themselves, They are distinguished.
Not boasting, They receive recognition.
Not bragging, They never falter.
They do not quarrel, So no one quarrels with them.
Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome."

? Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching
​

 

[Cork On the Ocean]

All insurance questions answered with this clip.

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

You're twisted!

 

[Chickpea]

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.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

 

[TooFarTampa]

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.

 

[yippie]

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.

 

[SHELLY]

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.

 

[Cork On the Ocean]

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.

 

[SlowMovin]

...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.