HPIA moratorium against BI residents is illegal IMHO (Pahoa: for sale, 2015)

[pbmaise]

Have you seen the latest revisions to House Bill HB737?

Something very fishy is going on.

Lawmakers are writing into law removing a moratorium that that was illegal by law.

Clearly the intent is something else. It is to permit insurance firms to drop all insured parties that might be affected by lava flow.

The flow may have stalled for now, however, the attack on Puna is continuing and being written into laws.

More details at


Punatalk - HPIA insurance moratorium is illegal IMHO

Philip Maise

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by pbmaise

Clearly the intent is something else. It is to permit insurance firms to drop all insured parties that might be affected by lava flow.

Why shouldn't insurance firms be allowed to drop insured parties from new information on lava flows?

That actually seems to make sense.

You get a DUI, your insurance can be dropped based on new information.

[Green_Mountain]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Why shouldn't insurance firms be allowed to drop insured parties from new information on lava flows?

That actually seems to make sense.

You get a DUI, your insurance can be dropped based on new information.

Because the entire point of insurance is to take risk. If an insurance company can take the risk and be happy to collect the money until the risk falls in the buyers favor, and then they get to cancel it, it makes the entire process a farce.

The DUI analogy is specious, these people aren't engaging in bad behavior that's causing increased risk, a drunk river is.

[whtviper1]

Insurance policies are not contracts that last in perpetuity. That have a fixed term - a person who has a policy can decide to cancel and choose another carrier - an insurance company should be able to decide it doesn't want you as a customer any longer. It is only fair.

[Green_Mountain]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Insurance policies are not contracts that last in perpetuity.

Policies themselves do not, but laws do dictate practices, which is exactly why this discussion is taking place. And laws can and sometimes do say "if you want to insure these 10 low risk areas you need to insure this 1 higher risk area". No one forces the insurance companies to do that.

What if an insurance company realized that residents of a certain town have much higher cancer rates? Do they get top drop coverage of that town? (just pretend we're talking pre ACA)

I'm not saying insurance companies should never be able to change what they cover, but it is subject to regulation otherwise it could be abusive and cause economic collapse of entire areas.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Green_Mountain

Policies themselves do not, but laws do dictate practices, which is exactly why this discussion is taking place. And laws can and sometimes do say "if you want to insure these 10 low risk areas you need to insure this 1 higher risk area". No one forces the insurance companies to do that.

The people of Hawaii elect their own politicians. If the folks don't like the proposed laws - they should elect new leaders - it seems sour grapes to me to complain about laws when it is the people themselves who elect legislators.

There might be more to the bigger picture here - perhaps not. But, who knows - perhaps insurance companies are threatening to leave the state entirely if they don't receive concessions to drop certain high risk areas. That makes everyone suffer not just the few in a high risk area.

[pbmaise]

I do not have HPIA, nor Title Insurance. My home is not
endangered directly by this flow.

Yet, I write, research and think how to defend those
that do.

Why? What great loss am I suffering?

I have mentioned this before. It is my name, my face.
Indeed, one poster point blank said I should not show
my face in Puna. I was lucky to be off island. How can
I confidently walk in my town and say hello to neighbors
if they think I lied to them?

I will not tolerate anyone thinking I lied. I have been hell
bent on proving the type of insurances borrowers
purchased protected them, the banks, and investors.

The current actions by lawmakers to change the
insurance after purchasing is a different story.

I personally signed my name, showed my face, made
money, while claiming insurance will cover you. Without
my assurances, people would not have invested their
life savings.

I am not Madolf. Who used his face to intentionally
steal.

Instead I am being made to look like a thief because
my promises ring hollow if insurance firms simply dump
customers at their will.

Time to change languages.

actio injurarum

[pbmaise]

Hawaii Insurance Commission
Ref: HPIA

Aloha
Please allow me to begin with a reminder.

The "legislature declares that it is the policy of this State that
the formation and conduct of public policy—the discussions
deliberations, decisions, and action of government agencies—
shall be conducted as openly as possible."

I admit the information that I am seeking may
be utilized in lawsuit against the State of Hawaii, and Hawaii
Property Insurance Association as defendants.

The basis of this lawsuit is founded upon my belief that recent
moratoriums imposed on areas of Hawaii Island were illegal.
Specifically, that the legislation that set up HPIA was
intended to ensure that all areas of Hawaii would have the
availability of a basic dwelling fire policy up to certain
limitations per home.

Further, that this legislation made no provisions to deny
coverages or impose moratoriums based upon speculation
that a lava flow may one day affect a property.

There is no ability to judge whether a property is at risk. Lava flows begin, stall, end, and travel in fashions that not even the USGS can forecast. Therefore, any moratorium is harming homes that are not at risk.Actions of denial of property in wide areas that cannot be justified on a risk basis constitute red-lining.

This information request was further sparked by legislation
HB737. It was rewritten to provide HPIA with the ability to
drop properties for no reason other than
insurance companies fear having to make a
payout after collecting exhortationist rates for decades.

These changes all constitute changes in public policy.
Therefore, this information request falls squarely under UIPA.
Thousands of people will be affected negatively by the
actions of that legislature. I recommend posting information I
request on your website.

Item 1. Charters of operations for HPIA that was in place
February 2015, January 2014, January 2009, January 2000,
and first charter used.

Item 2. Notes from any meetings, and input from entities such
as insurance firms, County of Hawaii, Civil Defense, State of
Hawaii, and USGS, where:
...The ability of HPIA to impose a moratorium was discussed,
added, or changed; or
...The definition of areas was discussed added , or changed.

Item 3. On November 19, 2014 the insurance commissioner
testified that moratoriums were in place in some areas but
not others. Specifically HPIA was still available in Kapoho and Kalapana. Who is making these decisions?

Item 4. From January 1, 2014 to present. Any meeting notes or HPIA related communications containing key words unmarketability, ALTA, or red-lining.

Item 5. From January 1, 2014 to present. Any meeting notes or HPIA related communications that contained or discussed in essence a threat by an insurer to pull out of all Hawaii unless exposure risk is reduced.

Item 6. The proposed method the insurance commission plans to employ to audit any insurance company claim that they should drop more than 5% of policies as described in HB737.

Item 7. A yearly summary of profit and losses by HPIA for years 2009 to 2014.

Item 8. A description of number of employees of HPIA and overall overhead for operations for year 2012-2014.

Item 9. Any meeting notes with council in 2014 or 2015 regarding HPIA.

I will accept documents piece meal. Please do not send any documents containing photos unless over all document is less than 1 megabyte.

Regards
Philip B. Maise
12-118 Kipuka Street
Pahoa, Hawaii 96778

PS This letter was also posted on Punaweb and City-Data Forums

[pbmaise]

Note:

Below I refer to charter. By this I mean Plan of Operation


TITLE 24. INSURANCE :: 2013 Hawaii Revised Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
chapter-431/section-431-21-106/

I am particularly interested in documents that were written in response to this mandate by the legislation.


" Establish reasonable underwriting standards for
determining insurability of a risk which are comparable to
the standards used to determine insurability of a risk
located outside the area designated by the commissioner
as eligible for association coverage;"

The apparent illegal nature of HPIA moratoriums may have stemmed from comparing the purpose and function of hurricane insurance moratoriums and dwelling fire policies. Wind damage and hurricane insurance is not comparable to fire damage and the fire policy.

Further, any examination of hurricane underwriting standards is illegal since it is not used as a determination "of a risk outside the area". Hurricane insurance is the same insurance both inside and outside the areas.

This by the way is in essence the legal basis for suit against HPIA. Suit against the State of Hawaii is for failure to follow this HRS. Suit against individuals is not considered at this point, however, I do call for public apology, full explanation, and if blame is within the insurance commission resignations. BTW please do not run around deleting documents to try and cover your trails.

I have not selected venue yet. It may be the Federal Court in Guam. It is in the Ninth, we are more likely to get a jury that do not have a stake in the outcome.

Before I waste your and my time along with taxpayer money, I want to agree on venue and standing. It is frivolous debating this when thousands of homeowners are effected by the harms caused by HPIA.

Note: Because my name was impinged my silence regarding past actions and current actions is not for sale.

Philip B. Maise

[pbmaise]

HB737 HD2 passed today and has been transmitted to
the senate.

Hawaii State Legislature
billtype=HB&billnumber=737

Anyone with HPIA insurance should be very concerned
as this bill allows non-renewals in the immediate threat
of a lava flow and even cancellation of insurance
policies should the insurance comissioner choose.
Instead of protecting your HPIA coverage, this bill
protects the insurance agencies so they can back out
on customers who have paid their dues if a lava
emergency is declared. Currently that emergency status
covers all of Puna.

This bill is establishing a moratorium not removing it. The moratorium to begin with was illegal and now is being written into law.

The net result is homeowners will face having coverage today for any unexplained loss today, and no insurance tomorrow.

All those properties will have unmarketable title.