by imtryn4 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 02:09 pm
My insurance company sent a letter for non renewal of my policy.
Our area was hit by a major hail storm. It damaged our roof, siding and some windows. We did not dispute any of what they would pay for and not pay for.
My agent understands we have been long term customers. We have owned several properties and vehicles and have been loyal to this company.
Underwriting says we have not owned our current residence long enough and has sent a letter of nonrenewal.
My agent spoke with underwriting then underwriting suggested they would renew if I would agree to a $10,000 deductible.
Is this possible? Our area was claimed a natural disaster and this was out of my controll.
Our area was hit by a major hail storm. It damaged our roof, siding and some windows. We did not dispute any of what they would pay for and not pay for.
My agent understands we have been long term customers. We have owned several properties and vehicles and have been loyal to this company.
Underwriting says we have not owned our current residence long enough and has sent a letter of nonrenewal.
My agent spoke with underwriting then underwriting suggested they would renew if I would agree to a $10,000 deductible.
Is this possible? Our area was claimed a natural disaster and this was out of my controll.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 05:26 pm Post Subject:
Kinda makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing they really care doesn't it. You don't have to name the company but let us know the advertising slogans they use to make you feel they really care at corporate.
We had similar situation in tornado alley in sw missouri, se kansas, and ne oklahoma. If you had a claim within the past three years, insurers didn't want your business even if it were acts of nature. Doesn't make sense to drop a homeowners coverage due to acts of nature and occurences beyond your control. They want you during the good times but when you become a risk or potential risk they dump you.
Many insurers are in the hotseat now for their actions in Florida. They want to sell auto insurance but not homeowners because of the risk. The state says hate to tell you this, but if you want to sell auto, you have to sell homeowners and if not, don't let the screen door hit your keyster on the way out of the state.
They should have saved some of those enormous corporate profits over the last ten years even after catastrophes were considered to put back for a rainey day, but they are in a cut throat business trying to satisfy their shareholders and investors.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 05:52 pm Post Subject:
Well thats just ignorant on the insurance companies fault. Those people were through enough. Probaly the only way to keep people getting home owners insurance in Florida is if the state did make them carry both auto and home owners.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 06:29 pm Post Subject:
This topic has been brought up before. OP and Mike, you have very valid points and I agree 100% that a carrier should stand behind their insureds but there is one factor that overrides any argument... a company should be able to control it's business. Mike, if I walk into your body shop and ask you to make some frankenstein repairs to my vehicle, should you have the option to say no? Or should you be required to make those repairs? But I agree that an insurance company needs to be regulated as without insurance commerce is not possible, should they be required to take on a risk when they are pretty sure it's going to cost them money? Keep in mind, they cannot charge any price their want for the policy, this is regulated by the state. So if they feel the risk is higher then they can charge, should they be required to write the policy?
Also, in most cases when an insurance company does not renew a policy they are walking away from any chance to recover what was spend on the recent claim. For me, this is a good indication that they feel that they really cannot make back that money.
But with that being said, there has been some indication that insurance companies are lining their pockets and using high risk as an excuses for higher premiums.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 07:01 pm Post Subject:
Mike, if I walk into your body shop and ask you to make some frankenstein repairs to my vehicle, should you have the option to say no? Or should you be required to make those repairs?
The choice to turn down a frankenstein repair would be a moral and ethical one to protect other motorists, and myself from liability. The insurers choice to only offer protection is based on profit motivation.
People are required by contract and sometimes statutes to possess insurance on property. No one can be forced to have their car repaired. Insurers have a captured market that is regulated by oversight and in many cases by the fox guarding the henhouse.
It would be nice to have at least some comfort in knowing than when a consumer chooses an insurer based on those slogans (they will always be there on your side, get you back to where you belong, like a good neighbor, in good hands, and all the others), that they really didn't mean we want to be there until the going gets rough and you had to file a claim. When that happens we'll treat you like a red headed stepchild.
Maybe like some auto policies, homeowners insurers could offer ten year or lifetime policies tied to cost of living indexes pro-rated based on claims experiences. Then homeowners might really have piece of mind.
I really do not have an intense dislike of the business of insurance, it's graft and greed that permeates the decisions that some base their actions on that bother me. I have no problems with insurers making reasonable profits, I just wish they would allow my industry the same consideration.
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 01:58 am Post Subject:
I see your point tcope. There is a certain amount of taking the bad with the good that most of us in business have to contend with. Publicly traded insurers with an unending supply of data are the driving force behind these types of "hardball" moves IMO. Looking back, do you recall noticing significant changes in how the business of insurance is conducted... and if so... how long ago?
Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 02:23 am Post Subject:
Looking back, do you recall noticing significant changes in how the business of insurance is conducted
.yep..and if so... how long ago?
1st wave about 1995ish (but that was a good one), next one about 2002, latest and worst one began about a year ago..Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 04:30 am Post Subject:
95ish was a good one? :shock: How so?
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 02:51 pm Post Subject:
Only 'good' thing I mean was ins was in a 'boom' period then.that i think (guessing from the profit sharing i got) started tanking about 02.and durning the 'boom' there still seemed to be quite alot of atomity for adjusters kind of a 'pay em all'' theory (In my area/company anyway). On the whole I don't mean 'good' more huge changes'' by 95 all there were three or so estimatic systems...most if not all shops were also no longer flat writting.
Huge changes came when the modil, lap tops came, and the adp sheets went away..
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 03:31 pm Post Subject:
Back then I was using the Mitchell books with the bar codes and the light pen. :D Do they still have profit sharing? I was getting some decent dividend checks from my carrier for a while, not much the last few years. It sounds like there is some more belt tightening going on with some carriers, I am hearing some grumbling about some 401k changes from some field appraisers.
Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 03:33 pm Post Subject:
Woops, forgot to log in. :D
Add your comment