Forum Thread

Long Pond Topics

(Long Pond Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,091 messages

Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Long Pond Fishing

(Long Pond Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,262 messages

Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	State Farm
Date:	2/14/2007 2:23:36 PM

Man, those hurrican victims really socked it to State Farm. Payback will not be nice.

State Farm: No New Policies in Miss.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 14, 2007; 2:05 PM

-- State Farm Insurance Cos. is suspending sales of any new commercial or homeowner policies in Mississippi starting Friday, citing in part a wave of litigation it has faced since Hurricane Katrina, a company official said Wednesday.

Mike Fernandez, vice president of public affairs for State Farm, said Mississippi's "current legal and political environment is simply untenable. We're just not in a position to accept any additional risk in this homeowners' market."

Fernandez said the decision does not affect existing policies (want to bet?) but the company is still assessing how many of the current policies in Mississippi will be renewed this year(That would be none near the coast).

Fernandez said the action was not a direct response to any specific development in the litigation. (Anybody believe that?) That litigation has included a recent federal jury's $2.5 million punitive damage award to a couple who sued State Farm for refusing to cover the 2005 hurricane's storm surge damage to their Biloxi home(They are going to enjoy their victory in Iowa).

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. later reduced the award to $1 million, even though Senter said State Farm acted in a "grossly negligent way" by denying the claim filed by policyholders Norman and Genevieve Broussard.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	State Farm
Date:	2/14/2007 4:09:39 PM

It will be interesting to see what insurance companies jump in to fill the void.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Imagine that,..
Date:	2/14/2007 4:55:17 PM

State Farm has to play by the rules, so they want to pick up their ball and go home. FYI, State Farm has already pulled out of the coastal areas of Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana. If State Farm had not fraudulently changed engineering reports so they would not have to pay claims, they would not have lost in FEDERAL court and be under Congressional investigation at this time.

BTW, they haven't written new home owners insurance south of I-10 since Katrina. The big item is they're not writing NEW HO policies in Mississippi, but they already own over 30% of the market--wonder if they'll give that up, or is this just a publicity stunt. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that their engineers are testifying in Congress today.

Why would anyone trust your house, auto, boat, health, or life with State Farm?

Name:	fulltimer -	Reply
Subject:	State Farm
Date:	2/14/2007 5:58:20 PM

I don't believe State Farm is any different than any other major insurance carrier. If there is anyway not to honor a claim they will all do it. Everyone should read the small print in any contract they sign. If you want to be covered in case of an earthquate you had better have insurance for it. The same goes for flood insurance, There are always two sides to every story.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	State Farm
Date:	2/14/2007 6:24:03 PM

The spin being put on the hurricane story by the insurance industry is that homeowners are trying to get their insurance companies to pay for a house that was flooded; when only Fed flood insurance should pay. The real FACT is the insurance companies tried to avoid paying for WIND damage by falsifying engineering reports, hiding reports, destroying reports, firing independent claims adjusters, etc. Problem for State Farm is two claims employees turned state's evidence on them and turned in over 10,000 pages of documents to the State, Feds, and Congress that exposed what they were doing.

Most articles in newspapers imply that it's Mississippi state courts that have the poor little insurance companies in trouble, but it's not, it's the Federal Court and Congress. Grand juries also are looking into criminal activities by the corporate executives. I agree that other insurance companies may be guilty of many of the same things, but State Farm is currently under the gun.

I have no grudge with State Farm, never had any insurance with them, but I just can't see why anyone would want to do business with them. Do you think they would treat you better?

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	State Farm
Date:	2/14/2007 10:26:27 PM

Personally, I think State Farm is getting screwed by Mississippi courts, including the federal courts located in the state. Homeowners tried to save money by refusing to buy flood insurance and when their houses floated away,they wanted payment from their homeowner's policies. The courts tried to help them out and as a result, Mississippi will have no reliable carriers available, at least in the immediate future.

Whatever, I don't think companies who are in the business of making a property want to write insurance in hurricane prone areas. In Florida, it appears that our state is now the main insurer of homes.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Talleyman
Date:	2/15/2007 12:17:16 AM

It sounds like you've been reading company memos, but one thing you said does ring true. Mississippians do not have reliable insurance companies--and neither do you. BTW, Federal Judges haven't been known to make decisions in the favor of the majority of Mississippians in my lifetime, and I don't think they did here either. If they had State Farm wouldn't be in such a hurry to settle the cases--they're in deep do do.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	Talleyman
Date:	2/15/2007 9:35:37 AM

When courts of any kind begin re-writing contracts of insurance, you can bet the premium payers will be the ultimate losers.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Talleyman
Date:	2/15/2007 9:51:47 AM

Remember two important things: 1. There is a precedence for the Fed case. A previous case had established that it was the responsibility of the insurance company to prove that there wasn't a loss as claimed by the insured, not that the insured had to prove that there was a loss. The insured homeowners claimed wind damage and the insurance company either falsified documents to cover up or just failed to investigate.

2. The courts didn't rewrite policy language after the fact, State Farm did. The parent company has been dragged into the court fight because a corporate policy was distributed to claims agents that required the agent to follow guidelines different and more strict than the policy contract.

These are the problems State Farm created for themselves.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	Talleyman
Date:	2/15/2007 10:44:29 AM

State Farm may have created some problems but the homeowners of Mississippi, and southern Alabama, (and also Florida) are going to pay the price for what the courts did.

There is no free ride for those who build their houses on sand.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	Talleyman
Date:	2/15/2007 10:56:53 AM

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	So what should have been done?
Date:	2/15/2007 12:50:14 PM

Thanks for seeing the light. State Farm is the bad guy--lied, committed fraud against policy holders, wouldn't pay claims. Policy holders sued and got justice. State Farm makes a big play that they're not going to write new policies in MS (they had already pulled out of South MS) What scenario would have been acceptable?

My take: Insurance companies are greedy ba$tards that will do only what they are forced to do; therefore, we need legislation to place them under anti-trust laws to prevent collusion for price fixing and claim fixing, and they need to be forced to provide coverage for all comers if they provide coverage for anyone. Why should they be allowed to discriminate while having protection from anti-trust. While this mess is getting straightened out the Feds need to step up the flood insurance to offer disaster insurance--one payer for hurricanes. That's my list for Santa.

Just heard an interesting segment on talk radio this morning. G. Gordon Liddy read what was obviously a press release from State Farm on their spin of the MS situation--he then got a caller from South MS who is a State Farm employee who set Liddy and the listeners straight on the facts of the situation. Caller was very well informed and had to work for SF to know some of the things he stated--he caught Liddy speechless--all Liddy could do was thank him and go to commercial.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	So what should have been done?
Date:	2/15/2007 1:38:19 PM

Actually, federal flood insurance got us into this mess. When I was a kid if you had a house on the beach it was a shack--often a concrete block shack. And why? No one would insure it so you didn't want to build something you couldn't afford to rebuild out of your pocket.

I suppose if State Farm is making a killing one could invest in it and get rich from the dividends. I don't know who owns it or how to invest in it. I don't think it is still a mutual but it may be. AIG, one of the biggest insurance companies has not seen any big run-up in its stock. It is selling for about what it was selling for three years ago. Allstate is up about $15 after three years. Nationwide is up about $20 over the same period. So are lots of other companies.

So who is getting the money if the cheating is so successful and how can I get in on it?

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	So what should have been done?
Date:	2/15/2007 1:57:11 PM

As far as Nat. Flood Insurance, the cat is out of the bag--the houses are built--now they've got to be insured.

As far as who gets all the profits from the insurance companies and why has the stock price not gone up, I don't know. How many new option shares are issued to executives? I have heard the State Farm has a $4billion reserve in cash to cover claims--they only paid out $1.1B for Katrina--most of it inland. Stock price does not always reflect how well a company is doing--many times it reflects what investors think the future holds.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	So what should have been done?
Date:	2/15/2007 2:26:31 PM

I don't know why they have to be insured with my money. I live on a big hill right south of the Geogia line and I don't have to worry about floods. So why should I pay for those who choose to live on the beach?

I have a place at Lake Martin, instead of the beach, because I figure floods aren't going to happen at Lake Martin. That is true, isn't?

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	80 years and counting.....
Date:	2/15/2007 3:03:38 PM

..... so far no floods. But now I am buying old pontoon boats, stripping them, and storing them under the house. I expect to have the largest houseboat on the lake soon cuz of the global warming!!

Name:	PC Al -	Reply
Subject:	Tax Breaks
Date:	2/15/2007 3:37:35 PM

I think the insurance companies are making such profits that they deserve more tax breaks, like we did for the Exxons and Shells of the world.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	So what should have been done?
Date:	2/15/2007 4:26:51 PM

Get out your dictionary and read the definition of "insurance". I think you'll find something about shared risks by a large group. As soon as you find a group that only insures homes that sit on a hill far from the ocean you'll get wiped out by a tornado or something. Mississippi had more Katrina claims far away from the coast than they had on the coast. I lost 5 trees at the lake from Ivan, but only one on the coast even though I was much closer to Ivan on the coast. Share the risk and pay the piper.

BTW, regardless of what State Farm wants you to believe, they have not paid one claim for flood damage, only wind.

Name:	Harborcon -	Reply
Subject:	So what should have been done?
Date:	2/15/2007 5:35:10 PM

I am very glad that those whose claims were denied were ultimately awarded recompense for their losses. But $2.5 Million in punitive damages? In addition to compensatory damages? Why not just pay for their house, its contents, loss of income from being displaced, living expenses, any medical expenses incurred as a result of the storm, and throw in a couple hundred thousand for cake icing. $2.5 Million just seems excessive...and could be a reason that the insurance companies spend so much money trying to avoid paying claims (which also makes me angry). Ivan was the third hurricane my little beach place survived. Thanks to my local ALFA agent, I have insurance at the beach. Most of my neighbors there either have none, or have very limited coverage. Many companies will no longer insure anything on the water side. It's always available from Lloyds of London, but at a cost so high and coverage so low, that it's virtually pointless. My beach adjuster initially suggested that the little bit of damage I had was due to rising water (read: flood). I had gone in the day we were allowed in and took a gazillion photos (it looked like a war zone), so I was able to document the aluminum siding and roofing from other houses that blew onto my porch and upstairs deck; the roof tiles in my yard and on my deck; the sharp-pointed hand-held digging tool that was embedded in a tree trunk about 2" deep, and the holes punched in my siding from blown debris. They paid my claim and neither canceled my coverage nor raised my rates. I didn't 'pad' my claim, nor try to get more than I was entitled to, and maybe that helped. Granted, I pay almost as much in premiums for my teeny beach house as I do for my residence, but I am grateful that I had the coverage. There is certainly graft and corruption in the insurance industry, but I have been very satisfied with ALFA (3 houses, 2 cars - down from 5 - and hubby's motorcycle) for almost 20 years. Maybe I'm just lucky with my agent and claims adjuster. I hope all those folks recover their losses from State Farm, and that they can rebuild their homes and their lives.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Harborcon
Date:	2/15/2007 7:20:30 PM

The $2.5M punitive damage award was reduced to $1M by the Judge to be within the Supreme Court guidelines. I'm not big on punitive damages, but how else do you get the attention of a corporation that makes $2 Billion every 90 days.

Ivan was a tough storm--meaner than Katrina except for the storm surge. Hopefully, Congress will get something done for disaster insurance soon.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Harborcon
Date:	2/16/2007 8:34:00 AM

When Congress gets involved, it's usually a disaster!

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	So true AU
Date:	2/16/2007 8:41:57 AM

Why should our tax dollars insure your property? If you can't afford to insure it, SELL it.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	Lifetime Laker has got it
Date:	2/16/2007 9:27:39 AM

Here are some wise thoughts.

Can our environment afford 'affordable' insurance?
Post Comment
By Rep. Don Brown

Every elected official who has tried to fix Florida's insurance problems has met with more frustration than success. One of my biggest frustrations is the silence of Florida's environmentalists.

The environmentalist community can always be counted on to support limits on coastal growth and oppose unwise or uncontrolled development. Today, we're learning that government actions that distort market forces - in particular, actions that subsidize insurance costs - create powerful incentives for unwise or uncontrolled growth. It's time to consider whether true market-pricing of insurance, where consumers pay the real, unsubsidized cost of living along our vulnerable coast, may be the best way of protecting that coast.

Try a little thought experiment. Let's say owners of Hummers and other big SUVs complain to the government that the high price of gasoline is making their vehicles unaffordable, and the businesses that depend on SUV sales complain that unaffordable SUVs would have devastating ripple effects throughout the economy. So the government decides to provide "affordable" gasoline to SUV owners, and it decides to tax owners of Priuses and other hybrid vehicles to support the SUV subsidy.

Is there any doubt about what would happen if Priuses were taxed to make Hummers more affordable? Inevitably, Hummer sales would go up and Prius sales would go down.

Thankfully, the government did not do anything that stupid a few months ago when gasoline topped $3 a gallon. And (as any free-market conservative would have predicted), Hummer sales went down and Prius sales went up.

Our state and federal governments have responded very differently when it comes to demands for "affordable" homeowners' insurance. The federal government created the heavily subsidized National Flood Insurance Program, and the state created the heavily subsidized Citizens Property Insurance Corp., which is relying on more than $2 billion in subsidies - taxpayer dollars and assessments on property owners - to cover the deficits it accrued during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. As costly as insurance from Citizens is, Citizens' premiums are far more "affordable" than they would be in the absence of that $2 billion subsidy.

To make matters worse, a substantial part of that subsidy goes to owners of vacation homes and investment properties. This year, Congress defeated proposals to force owners of vacation homes to pay the full actuarial cost of their flood insurance, and the Florida Legislature defeated proposals to require Citizens to charge an unsubsidized rate for vacation homes.

Everyone wants insurance to be affordable, but everyone has a different definition of affordability. Subsidies may make sense when they kick in only after a very serious hurricane, and subsidies may make sense temporarily if that's what it takes to keep people from losing their homes.

But we need to figure out what kind of "affordability" Florida can afford. For the people who care the most about our fragile environment, the immediate question is whether Florida can afford a coastal development policy that includes subsidized insurance for vacation homes.

State Rep. Donald D. "Don" Brown, a Republican, represents District 5, which covers Holmes, Washington and parts of Jackson, Okaloosa, Walton counties. Contact him at donald.brown@
myfloridahouse.gov.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Life Time Laker
Date:	2/16/2007 10:35:57 AM

In a perfect world I agree with your statement, but consider this:

1. The State and Federal governments are already involved in all insurance--they've just been bought off by the insurance companies.

2. States are responsible for 'regulating the insurance companies'. That's a joke, it just serves as a ready conduit of campaign gifts to state politicians.

3. The Feds, for some reason, have never placed the insurance industry under anti-trust regulations which allows them to price fix, claim fix, and divide up the market as their greed sees fit. For example every insurance followed exactly the same claims policy in Katrina. BTW, bills were filed in the House and Senate yesterday, and were co-sponsored by the leaders of both parties and both houses. We'll see it Congress has been bought off also.

It's easy to sit back and say that hurricanes don't affect me so I'm going to oppose any effort to corral the industry, but you've got to understand that the insurance industry affects all of us--just add up your annual payments for health, homeowners, cars, boat, etc.. They have, in the past few years, become more and more greedy. They need to compete for our business, not collude for it.

You want a free insurance marketplace, then let's force the industry to provide us one.

Name:	LifeTime Laker -	Reply
Subject:	Life Time Laker
Date:	2/16/2007 10:46:06 AM

"We'll see it Congress has been bought off also."

It's a lot cheaper to buy off a few federal legeslatures than to buy them in all 50 states.

The problem is that the free marketplace has made beach front property to expensive to insure and it is not due to collusion but collision (hurricaines with beaches).

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Life Time Laker
Date:	2/16/2007 12:17:30 PM

I agree. One of the other problems with high rises is some are being built so poorly that they will not stand up to a hurricane -- some had to be torn down after Ivan. Now that's stupid.

Name:	Tallyman -	Reply
Subject:	Hurricanes
Date:	2/16/2007 3:14:26 PM

Incredibly, several years ago, Florida legislators representing the panhandle exempted the panhandle from the relatively stringent statewide building code. That was corrected by the Florida Legislature last month. Building stronger buildings is probably the first step in solving this problem.

Nevertheless, I am paying higher premiums so some really rich people can look at the Gulf of Mexico from their expensive houses. I object to that. Those people should come to Lake Martin and bolster property values even more.

Maybe I am a populist, even if I'm not popular.

Name:	Osms -	Reply
Subject:	Hurricanes
Date:	2/16/2007 3:42:10 PM

FYI, the bill in Congress to add hurricane to Nat Flood Ins., will be available only for primary residences--no Fat Cats from ATL.

Quick Links
Long Pond News
Long Pond Photos
Long Pond Videos