News Insurance companies refusing N.E. US homeowners

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Insurance
AI Thread Summary
In Massachusetts, homeowners are facing rising insurance premiums and policy cancellations, particularly on Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, as insurers withdraw from high-risk markets. This trend is also seen in New York, where Allstate is dropping thousands of policyholders due to overexposure to weather-related losses. The inability to secure insurance is expected to significantly impact property values, particularly for expensive coastal homes, as potential buyers may be deterred by the lack of coverage. Discussions highlight the disparity between wealthy homeowners who can self-insure and those less affluent who may suffer greater financial consequences. The ongoing situation raises concerns about the future of coastal property markets and the potential for wealth shifts in these areas.
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
2,537
...In Massachusetts some homeowners already are paying higher premiums as insurers abandon certain local markets. While the state hasn't experienced a devastating hurricane in more than 50 years, insurance companies, including Andover Cos. and Hingham Mutual Group, increasingly are refusing to write homeowners' policies on Cape Cod and on the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard, where many of the East Coast elite keep vacation homes. That has driven many homeowners into the state's insurer of last resort, the Massachusetts Property Insurance Underwriting Association, also known as the FAIR plan.

...Other states barely touched by last summer's hurricanes also are feeling the impact. In New York, Allstate, the largest insurer in the state, recently announced it would drop 28,000 policyholders in eight counties, including New York City, citing "overexposure" to potential weather related losses there. But other insurers, including State Farm and Liberty Mutual Group, have said they would continue writing business in the state.

In Rhode Island, insurers are beginning to alert homeowners in coastal areas that their policies won't be renewed, according to the state's association of independent insurance agents. [continued]
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06082/675468.stm

It strikes me that we might see a great deal of wealth simply evaporate. If in areas once prized for their millions+ dollar homes, the land is suddenly considered too risky to insure, then the wealth simply disappears? This seems potentially significant since many coastal areas are painted with expensive homes and land.

I have often wondered how long the homes along the Pacific Coast Highway, around Malibu, California, will stand. Sooner or later these tremendously expensive homes seem destined to wash out, burn out, or slide in the mud.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Its even worse in Florida. Insurance companies are quick to leave the state, and raising their rates to crazy-high European levels, some as high as 15%. This is especially true after the 2004 hurricane season.

I don't think that the multimillion dollar homes in the Northeast will be nearly as affected as the constant onslaught coastal homes on the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf of Mexico will recieve, particularly after Katrina. Storms usually dissipate when they get too far north.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
It strikes me that we might see a great deal of wealth simply evaporate. If in areas once prized for their millions+ dollar homes, the land is suddenly considered too risky to insure, then the wealth simply disappears? This seems potentially significant since many coastal areas are painted with expensive homes and land.
Inability to insure those homes seems like it might lead to a dramatic decrease in property values. I don't really know for certain on that, since I've never really heard of it happening before, but it just seems it would be something a potential buyer would have to think long and hard about if they couldn't afford to self-insure. If you can't get insurance, you also can't get a mortgage, as mortgage companies require homeowner's insurance. So, that reduces the potential buyers as well...how many people could afford to walk in and buy those homes for cash without a mortgage?

One thing that crosses my mind, given these locations...do you really think it's weather-related, or that the homes are becoming so over-priced that the insurance companies just can't afford to replace them for any reason?
 
I'm surprised that you care about the plight of the super-rich, Ivan. IMO, if you build a house on a beach - any beach - you take your chances. Homeowner's insurance isn't a right, it's a business transaction.
 
russ_watters said:
I'm surprised that you care about the plight of the super-rich, Ivan. IMO, if you build a house on a beach - any beach - you take your chances. Homeowner's insurance isn't a right, it's a business transaction.

I don't think he's saying it's a right, more of an irony that the prized possesions are no longer very prized... or well, might not be prized in the future.
 
russ_watters said:
I'm surprised that you care about the plight of the super-rich, Ivan. IMO, if you build a house on a beach - any beach - you take your chances. Homeowner's insurance isn't a right, it's a business transaction.
While Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard mostly have a lot of rich folks living there, Cape Cod is not just populated with the rich. The super-rich can afford to self-insure; it's those who are not so rich who will be hurt most by this.
 
Pengwuino said:
I don't think he's saying it's a right, more of an irony that the prized possesions are no longer very prized... or well, might not be prized in the future.
My take on it is that he's predicting a shift in wealth if the very rich were to suddenly lose their homes without insurance, or were to get stuck being unable to sell them for what they're worth because nobody can insure them.
 
I'm surprised that you care about the plight of the super-rich, Ivan. IMO, if you build a house on a beach - any beach - you take your chances. Homeowner's insurance isn't a right, it's a business transaction.

You should care about the plight of any human being under hardship Russ. :rolleyes:
 
Moonbear said:
My take on it is that he's predicting a shift in wealth if the very rich were to suddenly lose their homes without insurance, or were to get stuck being unable to sell them for what they're worth because nobody can insure them.

Yah but like you said, they're rich enough to self-insure. Plus if you only really get a $10,000,000 house if you're worth $100,000,000 so i don't see any dramatic or even noticable shift in wealth if anything happens. I've been censored![/color]
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Moonbear said:
While Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard mostly have a lot of rich folks living there, Cape Cod is not just populated with the rich. The super-rich can afford to self-insure; it's those who are not so rich who will be hurt most by this.
How can the not-so-rich afford beach-front property? :confused:

By far, the most in danger are those who are right on the beach - in most places, if you go even a couple of miles inland, you get away from the strom surge and there really isn't much chance of losing your home. The article isn't all that specific, but in areas such as Martha's Vinyard, property values are extrordinarily high. We're not talking about "working-class" people here unless they inherited the land.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
cyrusabdollahi said:
You should care about the plight of any human being under hardship Russ. :rolleyes:
The question is, is it a hardship for the very wealthy? I don't know how extensive the area is that is not being insured, though. There are a lot of fishing villages along the coast there too, where the people are certainly not wealthy. For them, it would be a hardship to lose their home, which is quite different from losing your vacation home.
 
  • #12
cyrusabdollahi said:
You should care about the plight of any human being under hardship Russ. :rolleyes:
I should? Why? :confused: :confused:
 
  • #13
Moonbear said:
The question is, is it a hardship for the very wealthy? I don't know how extensive the area is that is not being insured, though. There are a lot of fishing villages along the coast there too, where the people are certainly not wealthy. For them, it would be a hardship to lose their home, which is quite different from losing your vacation home.

It's called moving. Do people even have any responsibilities anymore? Afraid your house isn't in a perfectly safe community and geographical location? move. I'm sure someone will take your beach front property off your hands. If the insurers refusing to insure you isn't a big enough sign, oh well.
 
  • #14
russ_watters said:
How can the not-so-rich afford beach-front property? :confused:

By far, the most in danger are those who are right on the beach - in most places, if you go even a couple of miles inland, you get away from the strom surge and there really isn't much chance of losing your home.
Until only a few years ago, my family owned waterfront property in Maine (I wouldn't exactly call it beachfront, as the coast is all rock there). The family had owned the property for generations, long before it was so coveted. If my great-aunt hadn't willed it away to a gold-digger, maybe we would have been wealthier to sell it at current market value, but short of selling it, we are not a rich family, and were not while that home was in the family.
 
  • #15
Pengwuino said:
It's called moving. Do people even have any responsibilities anymore? Afraid your house isn't in a perfectly safe community and geographical location? move. I'm sure someone will take your beach front property off your hands. If the insurers refusing to insure you isn't a big enough sign, oh well.
If your livelihood is fishing, how do you move away from the coast?
 
  • #16
Moonbear said:
If your livelihood is fishing, how do you move away from the coast?

live with it.

Don't like your job? quit. Life isn't supose to be a joyride. Some of the only good things about this world are the people like those who do make their livelihood off fishing full well knowing the risks but don't complain.
 
  • #17
I should? Why?

It's called compassion for your fellow man.

(Maybe we are not on the same page)
I am talking about the loss of their home.

If they can't get insurance, they knew about that risk when they purchased the home. That's a different story.

(Now if we are talking about a historic house or a famous house by an important architect, then I do feel sorry and think we should try to save the house or move it)
 
Last edited:
  • #18
live with it.

Don't like your job? quit. Life isn't supose to be a joyride. Some of the only good things about this world are the people like those who do make their livelihood off fishing full well knowing the risks but don't complain.

The people who spent generations as fishermen should all just sit back and shut up as they loose their livelyhoods and their homes? I would like to see you quit your job with rent and a family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
Pengwuino said:
live with it.

Don't like your job? quit. Life isn't supose to be a joyride. Some of the only good things about this world are the people like those who do make their livelihood off fishing full well knowing the risks but don't complain.
Nobody said they don't like their job. If they wanted to change jobs, moving from the coast would be easy, but if they want to keep their job, they need to stay near the coast. These people don't exactly live in mansions you know. And, if the current fishermen move away, someone else willing to take the job can't even afford to buy a home to do that if they can't get a mortgage...and you can't get a mortgage if you can't get homeowner's insurance.

Russ, as for the issue of storm surges only affecting people right on the coast, that really isn't going to matter if someone a bit inland also has their insurance dropped because the insurance company decides they are "close enough," and a tree falls on their roof, does it? They aren't talking about flood insurance here, the article is talking about homeowner's insurance.
 
  • #20
cyrusabdollahi said:
If they can't get insurance, they knew about that risk when they purchased the home. That's a different.
I agree it's different if someone buys a home knowing they can't get insurance. It's different if someone who currently owns the home and does have insurance suddenly has that insurance dropped, especially if none of the buyers in their market range would take the risk of buying without insurance...in other words, they're stuck with a house they can't sell and can't insure. Moving is not an option if you can't sell your current home, or if you have to take a substantial loss on it that won't even pay off the mortgage because nobody is willing to pay what you paid for it when they can't get insurance.
 
  • #21
What are you going on about? Who said anything about irresponsiblity, pengwuino?
 
  • #22
cyrusabdollahi said:
What are you going on about? Who said anything about irresponsiblity, pengwuino?

If you live in a dangerous area, don't complain about not being able to get insurance or the risk associated with your decision.

If people have lived there for generations, they obviously udnerstand hte risks and aren't complaining.
 
  • #23
If you live in a dangerous area, don't complain about not being able to get insurance or the risk associated with your decision.

Read moonbears post #21.
 
  • #24
Pengwuino said:
If you live in a dangerous area, don't complain about not being able to get insurance or the risk associated with your decision.

If people have lived there for generations, they obviously udnerstand hte risks and aren't complaining.
No, if they've lived there for generations and have always been able to get insurance, they know they are taking less of a risk. They know they won't be completely homeless and penniless if their home is destroyed in a storm, or because it catches on fire. Not having insurance changes the risk completely.
 
  • #25
Ivan said:
I have often wondered how long the homes along the Pacific Coast Highway, around Malibu, California, will stand. Sooner or later these tremendously expensive homes seem destined to wash out, burn out, or slide in the mud.
In the last rainy season there were a number of homes seriously damaged by land slides. It was a bit of a contraversy that these people, well off in the main, were seeking government aid to rebuild their homes. These people bought and lived in these homes even though they were uninsurable. People didn't like that their tax dollars were being used as insurance by these people and that the government was proposing spending millions to reinforce the land so these people could keep their expensive beach front homes.

Moonie said:
I agree it's different if someone buys a home knowing they can't get insurance. It's different if someone who currently owns the home and does have insurance suddenly has that insurance dropped, especially if none of the buyers in their market range would take the risk of buying without insurance...in other words, they're stuck with a house they can't sell and can't insure. Moving is not an option if you can't sell your current home, or if you have to take a substantial loss on it that won't even pay off the mortgage because nobody is willing to pay what you paid for it when they can't get insurance.
Then what do the insurance companies do? They aren't obliged to give anyone insurance. It's a service they offer to 'help' people.
Also the insurance companies don't exactly have some secret information that no one else does. If anyone researches their investment into a home then they should be well aware of the possible problems. Any one who has lived there then should obviously know that there are issues and expect that they are running a risk by continuing to live there. Having insurance isn't a right garanteed by the constitution.
 
  • #26
Moonbear said:
One thing that crosses my mind, given these locations...do you really think it's weather-related, or that the homes are becoming so over-priced that the insurance companies just can't afford to replace them for any reason?

As reported, this is a direct result of Katrina.
 
  • #27
russ_watters said:
Homeowner's insurance isn't a right, it's a business transaction.

Besides you, did someone suggest that it is a right?
 
Last edited:
  • #28
russ_watters said:
I'm surprised that you care about the plight of the super-rich, Ivan. IMO, if you build a house on a beach - any beach - you take your chances. Homeowner's insurance isn't a right, it's a business transaction.
Insurance is about risk (chance, probability). The greater the risk, the higher the premium.

Now, if one builds a house on a beach along the east coast of the US, it is very likely that in about 10-20 years, it will experience some damage from high wind or waves or both (hurricane or Nor'easter), so why shouldn't an insurance company expect to be able to cover an 'almost certain loss'. The chance (risk) of property damage seems to be increasing recently.

The idea is to spread the risk among the population, but that is predicated upon people taking similar risk and minimizing risk as much as possible. People on the beach are assuming way more risk than those in-land, and so they should be expected to assume greater cost of insurance.

Insurance works well when 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10,000 claim, but when 1 in 10 or more (high fraction) start claiming, then insurance is no longer insurance, but subsidy. :rolleyes:

Moonbear said:
One thing that crosses my mind, given these locations...do you really think it's weather-related, or that the homes are becoming so over-priced that the insurance companies just can't afford to replace them for any reason?
It's both. The chance of extreme weather events is increasing AND the value of the property is increasing = more to lose.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06082/675468.stm

It strikes me that we might see a great deal of wealth simply evaporate. If in areas once prized for their millions+ dollar homes, the land is suddenly considered too risky to insure, then the wealth simply disappears? This seems potentially significant since many coastal areas are painted with expensive homes and land.

I have often wondered how long the homes along the Pacific Coast Highway, around Malibu, California, will stand. Sooner or later these tremendously expensive homes seem destined to wash out, burn out, or slide in the mud.
Technically, the value of the homes are put into a more accurate perspective, since the risk factor is coming into play. The fact that 'someone else' would pay for the losses may have given the illusion that the houses are more valuable than they really are, but the real value of the homes hasn't changed a bit.

Unless insurance companies have miscalculated the risks, there are no 'free' chances. The idea is that everyone facing a common risk chips in for every loss rather any individual being devastated by a single loss (plus a profit for the company that's running the pool).

The only way to reduce the insurance costs are to get individuals less likely to file a claim to chip in, as well. For example, convince people in Nebraska to chip in for hurricane losses on the coast. It's hard for insurance companies to do that (it takes the government to do that by making it mandatory via higher taxes).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
No one needs to own beachfront property, even fishermen. Fisherman can't drive a few miles like professionals of every other kind?

Beachfront property is a luxury, not a necessity for survival. Certainly, these people have the means to survive -- they can move, they can save up money for their own expected loss, they can redesign their property to make it safer for their houses. They're not going to end up begging on the side of the road.

You also have to keep in mind that the houses themselves (the timber and shingles) are practically worthless compared to the market value of the land. The potential for loss is not over timber and shingles, it's due to an investment that didn't pan out.

So, let's compare it to any other kind of investment. People know that the land has no intrinsic value -- sure, it's got a pretty view, but the lots are small, there are no stores of natural resources, etc. The land only has significant value because other people are also willing to pay significant prices for it.

Now, it seems pretty obvious that an investment with no real intrinsic value -- a plot of land in Martha's Vineyard, or a stock with a price to earnings ratio of 200 -- is a gamble. It only gains value if the market drives it to have value, and there's no such gaurantee.

People who make their real-estate buying decisions because they like the view from the breakfast nook are making risky (stupid?) investment choices, and the needed to consider the implications of those choices before making the purchase.

No one feels sorry for day-traders who don't do enough research and lose their shirts on high-risk stocks; why would anyone feel sorry for real-estate investors who don't do enough research and buy property with ultra-inflated prices and no intrinsic value?

- Warren
 
  • #31
BobG said:
Technically, the value of the homes are put into a more accurate perspective, since the risk factor is coming into play. The fact that 'someone else' would pay for the losses may have given the illusion that the houses are more valuable than they really are, but the real value of the homes hasn't changed a bit.

It seems to me that wealth evaporates. For example, I might sell a home to someone from Japan which brings some number of Yen, then dollars into the economy. Likewise, if my home floods or burns, the insurance money, much of which often comes from foreign investors, in put back into the economy. So if the value of a large sector of the high priced housing market takes a huge and permanent drop, this would seem to represent a direct loss to the economy. If a million homes along the South, East, and West coast, see a million dollar loss, this represents a potential loss of one trillion real dollars, which, interestingly, just happens to be near the minimum price to end our dependence on oil. In any case, if this trend continues, the potential effects would seem to be significant.

This also reminds me a bit of the loss to the economy during the transisiton from manual to computerized banking. As the ability to float checks diminished, all of the pseudo cash in "mail space" slowly evoporated. As it was explained to me, it was like removing billions of dollars from the economy.
 
  • #32
Oh yes, IIRC, it is thought that in part, the double digit inflation experienced in the US, in the early 70's, was ultimately due to the loss of pseudo cash in the banking system.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Besides you, did someone suggest that it is a right?
If you aren't suggesting it is a right or an entitlement, then what is the point of this thread?

I really don't get it. Yes, insurance companies are constantly re-evaluating their risks and sometimes that means they stop insuring some types of properties. Ok...so what? Why is this worth discussing?
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Ivan Seeking said:
It seems to me that wealth evaporates. (snip)

Depends. If homes are purchased with cash and the market falls as a function of insurance companies' policies, yes. If homes are purchased with lenders' money, no --- that was never "real" money. The banks show smaller profits for defaulted mortgages (actually larger given tax write-offs and other creative bookkeeping tricks).
 
  • #35
russ_watters said:
If you aren't suggesting it is a right or an entitlement, then what is the point of this thread?

I really don't get it. Yes, insurance companies are constantly re-evaluating their risks and sometimes that means they stop insuring some types of properties. Ok...so what? Why is this worth discussing?

The point is that it may have a significant impact on the economy. I'm not making a value judgement.

Edit: In fact, IMO, many homes never should have been built. I'm not faulting the insurance companies - less their refusal to pay claims on homes that were properly insured, in the gulf states.
 
Last edited:
  • #36
Bystander said:
Depends. If homes are purchased with cash and the market falls as a function of insurance companies' policies, yes. If homes are purchased with lenders' money, no --- that was never "real" money. The banks show smaller profits for defaulted mortgages (actually larger given tax write-offs and other creative bookkeeping tricks).

True, however, many people today rely on the equity in their home to acquire additional wealth. This ends up as real cash in the economy.
 
  • #37
Moonbear said:
No, if they've lived there for generations and have always been able to get insurance, they know they are taking less of a risk. They know they won't be completely homeless and penniless if their home is destroyed in a storm, or because it catches on fire. Not having insurance changes the risk completely.

Unless the insurance companies decided to quadruple the equivalent insurance premium overnight, your point doesn't stand. These people couldn't have been paying very cheap rates in the first place so there's no reason to think that the risk changed "completely" unless these highly successful and very rich insurance companies are like the average joe six pack and panic and go wildly raising rates 500% over some disaster in another part of the country.

They're smarter then that.
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that it may have a significant impact on the economy. I'm not making a value judgement.

I doubt it would have a significant impact. Like you just said, people use their homes to generate wealth. The longer these homes have been in the same hands, the more potential wealth exists but the less actual wealth exists that has been put into the economy (since they haven't been sold off yet... unless of course people are taking out equity loans... which is patently stupid if your house is worth $10,000,000...). Of course, I have no idea how many of these million dollar mansions have been in the same hands for however long.
 
  • #39
Pengwuino said:
Unless the insurance companies decided to quadruple the equivalent insurance premium overnight, your point doesn't stand. These people couldn't have been paying very cheap rates in the first place so there's no reason to think that the risk changed "completely" unless these highly successful and very rich insurance companies are like the average joe six pack and panic and go wildly raising rates 500% over some disaster in another part of the country.

They're smarter then that.

Still, it's pretty unfair if you've been paying say, $2K a month for the last twenty years, only to get none of it back when a storm finally strikes because the insurance company decided to dump your coverage. If they're going to do that, they should at least refund the premiums you've already paid. I'd be a lot more understanding if they just jacked up the premiums to an absurdly high level, or even if they just refused new policies. You may have no right to insurance, but it certainly seems like you should have the right to be covered when you've been paying for coverage for many years already.
 
  • #40
Ivan Seeking said:
The point is that it may have a significant impact on the economy.
Really? How much money are we talking about here?
 
  • #41
loseyourname said:
Still, it's pretty unfair if you've been paying say, $2K a month for the last twenty years, only to get none of it back when a storm finally strikes because the insurance company decided to dump your coverage. If they're going to do that, they should at least refund the premiums you've already paid.
Where are you getting that? I don't see it in the link Ivan posted. All it talks about is raising premiums and dropping coverage going forward. Not paying a claim would have to be a breach of contract.

The insurance on the townhouse I'm buying is only slightly more than the insurance on my car, and the townhouse is worth a little more than 10x as much as the car. To me, homeowner's insurance seems like a pretty good deal - and I'm a guy who typically doesn't like insurance.

If I buy a Mustang, my insurance premiums will go up. If later the Mustang proves to have a flaw that makes it explode (as they once did), the insurance company could well drop my policy. If I buy a house which later proves to be in an area that isn't as geologically stable as originally thought, my insurance company could well drop my policy. That's life and that's a reality of the gamble of insurance. I still don't see anything particularly Earth'shattering about this. It certainly isn't a new concept and the impact on the economy - well - what fraction of houses in the US are actually affected here? A thousandth of a percent?
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Hmmm . . . I guess I just misread it. I could have sworn it said they were dumping people that already had coverage.
 
  • #43
loseyourname said:
Hmmm . . . I guess I just misread it. I could have sworn it said they were dumping people that already had coverage.
That's what I thought I read too. :confused:
 
  • #44
Moonbear said:
That's what I thought I read too. :confused:
You read it correctly. Insurers are not just raising rates - they are refusing to renew existing policies. In essence, they are saying "Thanks for all your premiums in the past - we are dumping you before we have to pay any claims."

Wendy Northcross, president of the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, says she hunted for several months for new insurance for her modest, three-bedroom house when her long-time insurer withdrew from the Cape Cod market last year. "I was literally starting to panic, and I'm not prone to panic," she says. Ms. Northcross says she finally ended up in the state's FAIR plan, which boosted her premium to $1,200 a year from $800 under her previous policy.

Other states barely touched by last summer's hurricanes also are feeling the impact. In New York, Allstate, the largest insurer in the state, recently announced it would drop 28,000 policyholders in eight counties, including New York City, citing "overexposure" to potential weather related losses there. But other insurers, including State Farm and Liberty Mutual Group, have said they would continue writing business in the state.

In Rhode Island, insurers are beginning to alert homeowners in coastal areas that their policies won't be renewed, according to the state's association of independent insurance agents. Premiums on continuing policies in the state have risen from 10 percent to 15 percent in the past year, and more insurers are imposing higher deductibles for windstorm damage, the association says. And in Maine, regulators say they are bracing for what they expect will be efforts by insurers to boost premiums because of increased reinsurance costs.
Insurers have very effective lobbies, and if they wish to conspire to raise all the premiums in the Northeast to cover their recent losses in the South, they can do so with impunity. As Moonbear pointed out, working-class people along the Maine coast are being taxed out of their homes due to skyrocketing property values. We have had to resort to legislative initiatives such as taxing property based on current use instead of "best use" to keep piers open so fishermen can keep working.

If insurers drop coverage on coastal residents' homes, they are creating a very nasty situation, since no insurance=no mortgage. If you lose your insurance and cannot get coverage elsewhere, the bank will call your note, and if you can't pay it off, they will foreclose. If you own your home outright, you're fine - the problem is that self-employed people can have a hard time getting loans to overhaul their boat's engine (for instance) and may resort to the only form of security the bank will take - equity in their home. For this reason, if for no other, there are probably a lot of home equity loans among the fishermen.
 
  • #45
I would say that Katrina revealed that insurance companies have miscalculated the risks. Buying property insurance is sometimes just buying a set of ground of rules for the ensuing legal war.

For insurance companies, the goal is to reduce "claims leakage" - paying out more than they are legally obligated to pay. http://www.insurancenetworking.com/protected/article.cfm?articleId=3957

For home owners (and tax payers), the goal is to maximize the amount of damage covered by private insurance companies (and to reduce the amount covered by government programs). I'm not sure how the process works, but I think homeowners have to wait for claims to be resolved with their private insurance company before turning to the National Flood Insurance Program (if appicable) or to government disaster assistance.Dale wants answers on wind claims

For a disaster as big as Katrina, it's important for insurance companies to win their legal wars. Losing a legal war, or even having the tide turn against them in a protracted battle, causes them to reassess the amount of risk they face in future disasters.
 
  • #46
In the light of Katrina and Rita, and the apparent increase in frequency of such extreme weather events, the risk of property loss (and hence increased likelihood of insurance claims) has increased.

People have been allowed to build in high risk areas - on the beach and in warmer climates.

Property owners should be expected to assume more of the risk, since they expose themselves to more risk. This is similar to casualty and life insurance, which is much higher for those who freely 'choose' riskier activities like riding motorcycle, skydiving, scuba diving, mountain climbing. People should not expect subsidies from those who are more cautious.
 
  • #47
Astronuc said:
Property owners should be expected to assume more of the risk, since they expose themselves to more risk. This is similar to casualty and life insurance, which is much higher for those who freely 'choose' riskier activities like riding motorcycle, skydiving, scuba diving, mountain climbing. People should not expect subsidies from those who are more cautious.

Interesting. I would have assumed that scuba diving wouldn't be considered risky, as it doesn't seem nearly as dangerous as skydiving. But even still, the odds of dying in either scuba diving or sky diving is less than the overall odds of dying in a car accident, which is roughly 1/360 if my memory is correct.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
4K
Replies
65
Views
10K
Back
Top