[mango23]

Originally Posted by bbronston

The article says it has only been passed thru part of the legislature. It is not in final form yet. Other than allowing them to raise rates for advertising and commissions without approval (which seems stupid to me), what is it in the bill that bothers you?

I honestly don't know much about it but it seems to me that they have to do something to stop fraudulant sinkhole claims (that we all pay for) and promote more competition. Having only Citizens is a very bad situation and government shouldn't be in the insurance business anyway, IMHO.

Them calling the shots on how and when they have to pay. I have a friend who is an accountant for doctors. They have accounts receivables in the hundreds of thousands almost all the time. It is not the insurance companies don't pay or even claim they don't owe. But given the chance they will stall you around for as long as they can legally get away with. I can see them screwing around home owners and getting them to make settlements that are in the favor of the insurance company. I remember once having an insurance company offer me $400.00 for a classic 65 mustang on the premise it was a 35 year old car that sold for $2100.00 new. I had to basically put together court case to get paid. Then they came back and offered me $1000. and threatened I could end up with nothing if I didn't take it. I got my money but they lie and intimate at every turn. I can just imagine what they will do to some poor old person. "Please just sign here sir and we will take care of everything", as they screw the person.
I refuse to believe you have not dealt with an insurance company. I hope you are not going to tell me it was a pleasure.

[bbronston]

I've had my fair share of dealings with insurance companies. Some were actually good, some OK, and a couple were a real pain but, to be fair, we deserved it because our records at the time weren't very good. However, our experiences with claims are not the point. As I read this article, and putting it together with a couple of others I've read, the issue here is that there are a number of weasel claimants who make bogus or inflated claims, receive full payment, and then never make the alledged needed repairs. Every one of us, directly or indirectly, have to pay for these payouts. This proposal just allows them to holdoff payment until the work that is claimed to be needed is actually finished. That seems reasonable to me. It keeps down the expense of fraud.

[num1baby]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I've had my fair share of dealings with insurance companies. Some were actually good, some OK, and a couple were a real pain but, to be fair, we deserved it because our records at the time weren't very good. However, our experiences with claims are not the point. As I read this article, and putting it together with a couple of others I've read, the issue here is that there are a number of weasel claimants who make bogus or inflated claims, receive full payment, and then never make the alledged needed repairs. Every one of us, directly or indirectly, have to pay for these payouts. This proposal just allows them to holdoff payment until the work that is claimed to be needed is actually finished. That seems reasonable to me. It keeps down the expense of fraud.

I actually like that part of it. I don't see why they should pay up front. I think there needs to be some small print in there saying that "after the repairs are made, the insurance company must pay within 30 days" and also "if a down-payment is needed up front to begin the work, the insurance company must pay...". Of course the wording should be different, but you get the idea. I also think that there should be some regulation on the insurance companies saying that they cannot withhold payment on an approved claim if it will delay homeowners moving back in. In other words, if the insurance company is delaying payment and that is delaying work from being done keeping homeowners out of the home, the insurance company gets a fine. Of course this would only apply to situations where a down-payment is required to start work.

If some of those rules aren't in place, you won't be able to find a decent contractor to work on the house because they won't get timely payment. If no contractors are willing to do the work, no claims get paid because they only pay after work is complete. It could be a vicious cycle that would only hurt the homeowners.

[AnnieA]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I've had my fair share of dealings with insurance companies. Some were actually good, some OK, and a couple were a real pain but, to be fair, we deserved it because our records at the time weren't very good. However, our experiences with claims are not the point. As I read this article, and putting it together with a couple of others I've read, the issue here is that there are a number of weasel claimants who make bogus or inflated claims, receive full payment, and then never make the alledged needed repairs. Every one of us, directly or indirectly, have to pay for these payouts. This proposal just allows them to holdoff payment until the work that is claimed to be needed is actually finished. That seems reasonable to me. It keeps down the expense of fraud.

IF this is the case, you say you have studied this, then I am all for it. We have to do something about things like this. God knows, there is enough fraud in enough areas, medicare, medicaid, social security disabilility, welfare. People say it is crazy to think people will keep having children for a few lousy dollars a month for welfare but, when you don't have ANYTHING else coming in and you cobble together other programs with it, heck yeah, it helps you get by, it you put enough illegitimate children in one household......people are stupid.

[bbronston]

Well, don't take MY word for anything...look it up yourself so you feel comfortable with your position. Personally, I want my insurance companies to be making good profits so they'll be there when I need them and other companies will compete for my and your business. It's when they are not making enough that they lose shareholders and give lousy service, cut back jobs, and leave us with, god forbid, only the government to rely on for coverage.

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by bbronston

I've had my fair share of dealings with insurance companies. Some were actually good, some OK, and a couple were a real pain but, to be fair, we deserved it because our records at the time weren't very good. However, our experiences with claims are not the point. As I read this article, and putting it together with a couple of others I've read, the issue here is that there are a number of weasel claimants who make bogus or inflated claims, receive full payment, and then never make the alledged needed repairs. Every one of us, directly or indirectly, have to pay for these payouts. This proposal just allows them to holdoff payment until the work that is claimed to be needed is actually finished. That seems reasonable to me. It keeps down the expense of fraud.

If I enter an honest claim in good faith, is approved by the insurance adjuster, what difference does it make what I do with the money? I paid the premiums for my property that was insured for X amount of dollars. If an insurance adjuster decides that my property has suffered X amount of damage, that means I am owed what it would take to cover X amount of damage. What I do with the money is nobody's business. I can take that money, sell what's left of the home/lot, pay off the mortgage and get out of town if I want.

I had a person run into a car I owned. Her insurance company had me get three estimates for repair. I decided which one I wanted to use, and the insurance company wrote ME a check. Well, I decided I really didn't like that car anyway so I sold it and used the insurance check to buy another car, but it wouldn't had made any difference if I'd decided to blow it all on lottery tickets or decided I was going to invest it in comic books, nor should it. They paid for damage done and that was that.

Keeping down "the expense of fraud" is fine and dandy ( I think the sinkhole fraud issue is blown out of proportion and is being used as an excuse to get out of risk. Why do the insurance companies pay if they suspect fraud?), but if I have a legitimate claim, what I do with the money should be between me and the holder of my mortgage (mostly me). Not the insurance companies and certainly not Tallahassee.
I'm waiting for an explanation how this proposed legislation will benefit homeowners.

[bbronston]

Here's a link to a WSJ article from last September. It may shed some light on the problem being addressed.
Sinkhole Claims Engulf Florida Insurers - WSJ.com

I could be wrong because I am certainly not an insurance expert but I gather that sinkhole coverage is a specific rider type of insurance which is intended to remedy actual sinkholes and, in cases where the insurance is there primarily to protect the mortgage holder's investment (which I assume is most cases), the policy holder is filing either a fraudulant claim or an over-inflated claim (i.e. normal settling cracks), receiving the money, and then not protecting the investment as they should. Fraud is fraud and should be stopped. Inflated paid claims that may or may not be true sinkhole damage, should still be used to fix the alledged problem. Otherwise, the policy holder is, in effect, defrauding the lender. If they use the money for something else, and the problem is real but unremediated, the lender is left unprotected and that is wrong because it violates the promise the borrower made to the lender.

[vaughanwilliams]

Originally Posted by bbronston

Having only Citizens is a very bad situation and government shouldn't be in the insurance business anyway, IMHO.

Then get rid of Federal Flood Insurance. I don't need it and I'm tired of subsidizing those dead beats.

You think wind damage insurance is expensive? Try getting flood insurance without a Federal subsidy.

[bbronston]

So, you want to get rid of the private companies and have everything done thru centralized government?

[mango23]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

If I enter an honest claim in good faith, is approved by the insurance adjuster, what difference does it make what I do with the money? I paid the premiums for my property that was insured for X amount of dollars. If an insurance adjuster decides that my property has suffered X amount of damage, that means I am owed what it would take to cover X amount of damage. What I do with the money is nobody's business. I can take that money, sell what's left of the home/lot, pay off the mortgage and get out of town if I want.

I had a person run into a car I owned. Her insurance company had me get three estimates for repair. I decided which one I wanted to use, and the insurance company wrote ME a check. Well, I decided I really didn't like that car anyway so I sold it and used the insurance check to buy another car, but it wouldn't had made any difference if I'd decided to blow it all on lottery tickets or decided I was going to invest it in comic books, nor should it. They paid for damage done and that was that.

Keeping down "the expense of fraud" is fine and dandy ( I think the sinkhole fraud issue is blown out of proportion and is being used as an excuse to get out of risk. Why do the insurance companies pay if they suspect fraud?), but if I have a legitimate claim, what I do with the money should be between me and the holder of my mortgage (mostly me). Not the insurance companies and certainly not Tallahassee.
I'm waiting for an explanation how this proposed legislation will benefit homeowners.

Thanks for writing that it saved me the trouble. If my garage burns down and I decide to not rebuild it that is my business. I paid the insurance and I want to be paid. Does anyone in their right mind think any insurance company will do the right thing without oversight? They historically screw people as a business practice; deny, deny, deny, low ball, low ball, low ball, you get the picture. It is built into their business model. What these people are capable of doing to some poor old trusting elderly people would border of elder abuse. I have already seen it when Wilma came through and I live in a neighborhood with a lot of retires. One old guy was talked into not even filing a claim by his agent with the threat his rates would double. If it was say my father I may have taken that agent on a one way tour of the everglades. These people are no damn good and no two ways about it.