How can we solve the insurance problem in Florida?

[Rainger99]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.

[Stu from NYC]

Stopping the roof scam would help. Make the homeowner pay for second opinion on whether roof needs to replace under insurance.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Stop the roof scam and restore insurance regulations.

[Rainger99]

Stopping the roof scam would help. Make the homeowner pay for second opinion on whether roof needs to replace under insurance.

I agree with that. I would think that the roof scam would be a relatively easy fix.
Maybe the $100 billion damages number is 75% fraudulent but I have not seen any evidence of that.

But if you have legitimate losses of $100 billion, how can 21 million people pay for that?

[retiredguy123]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges. The total damage included more than just private homes. Much of the damage was commercial and Government buildings, roads and bridges, etc. Also, the Federal and State Government provided funds and loans to cover much of the damage and cleanup work.

[44Apple]

Insurance is increasing nationwide, a good deal of it is at least partially due to the plethora of natural disasters. Not just a Florida problem.

[tophcfa]

Things can only be changed within the ability to control them. Nobody can change natural disasters. What can be changed?

- People living inland, who have significantly lower exposure to natural disaster risk, should not have their premiums jacked up to subsidize those who choose to live closer to harms way. If people living close to the shore can’t afford, or get, insurance then that shouldn’t be others problems for their riskier choices.
- Do something about the roofing scam, like pro-rating replacement based on age.
- Regulations on insurance companies needs to strike a delicate balance between protecting both the customers and the insurers. If the regulations are too onerous for insurers, they will simply pull out of the market. Insurance Companies are all about diversifying risk, unfortunately hurricane risk is next to impossible to diversify. It’s critical to have as many Companies as possible willing to write policies in the market to keep any individual company’s exposure to the region down, resulting in lower premiums. The opposite is happening in Florida, as evidenced by Farmers pulling entirely out of the state. That leads to thousands of homeowners looking for policies from a limited number of remaining insurers who have little or no appetite for more correlated risk that can’t be diversified away. Under that scenario, premiums can only go in one direction.

[villagetinker]

IMHO, the legislators need to actually INVITE the insurance companies to the discussions about proposed changes and then come to a common ground and understanding of the situation, unfortunately, I am sure this will never happen.

[Rainger99]

IMHO, the legislators need to actually INVITE the insurance companies to the discussions about proposed changes and then come to a common ground and understanding of the situation, unfortunately, I am sure this will never happen.

I am not a legislator and I do not work for an insurance company but I assume that the insurance companies have lobbyists in Tallahassee and that they are in contact with the legislators.

[Stu from NYC]

I am not a legislator and I do not work for an insurance company but I assume that the insurance companies have lobbyists in Tallahassee and that they are in contact with the legislators.

Makes sense

[Rainger99]

I just pulled my insurance policy and looked at it. 75% of the premium is for hurricane exposure!! And my hurricane deductible is $6500.

[jebartle]

Insurance companies prorated roof claims, and there is always self insuring.

[Rainger99]

Insurance companies prorated roof claims, and there is always self insuring.

Self insuring is always an option. If you are paying $6,000 a year for property insurance, you would spend $180,000 over the next 30 years. If you get hit with a hurricane and have major damage to your house, the damage would probably far exceed $180,000. However, if you don't get hit and have no damage or claims over the next 30 years, you have wasted $180,000.

[RobertScott]

+1 tophcfa

"- People living inland, who have significantly lower exposure to natural disaster risk, should not have their premiums jacked up to subsidize those who choose to live closer to harms way. If people living close to the shore can’t afford, or get, insurance then that shouldn’t be others problems for their riskier choices."

If folks want to live on the Florida coast or adjacent to the San Andreas Fault in California, they should be in their own group. I do not want to subsidize their risk at all. Here in Central Florida any one of us could have our house hit by lightening or a tornado, not as a result of our foolish decisions.

[guitarguy]

Prorate roof claims based on age of the roof. No one should get an old roof replaced for only the cost of a deductible.

[C. C. Rider]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.

First, you are overlooking the fact that MOST people have insurance on their home that would cover hurricane damage. Typically, this doesn't cover FLOOD or STORM SURGE damage, but it does cover damage that is a direct result of the wind and any subsequent damage that may be done if the wind causes a roof leak or window breakage or other wind related damage.

Second, you are overlooking the fact that property insurers have RE-insurers which provide insurance to them in case of catastrophic losses. In other words, the insurance companies have insurance too to protect them against unusually large losses.

Third, not all hurricane damage losses are covered by insurance. Much of it is due to flood losses which (usually) aren't covered unless the person or business bought flood insurance which is very expensive. It's expensive because not everyone shares equally in the threat of flood damage.

People who live on high ground have no need for expensive flood insurance, so they don't buy it. People who live in flood-prone areas NEED flood insurance, but since the cost is usually quite high, many people don't buy it even though they may need it.

And finally, we can be thankful that an "Ian" level storm doesn't hit us every year. So, even if the insurance companies may lose money in one year, they can make it up in other years in which their losses are less. It's kind of like the gambling in Las Vegas. Occasionally the house may get hit for a big loss, but they make it up by winning many small bets... and most of the big ones too. :)

[kkingston57]

I am not a legislator and I do not work for an insurance company but I assume that the insurance companies have lobbyists in Tallahassee and that they are in contact with the legislators.

Correct but no one can accurately predict the weather and it's ramifications. As I write this there is a large hurricane in the Atlantic which is expected to have winds in the 160MPH range. It probably will not hit the US. In 2019 Hurricane Dorian missed Florida by 90-100 miles and it had windspeeds in the 150mph range and it stalled. That storm would have been much worse than Ian since it missed a more populated area of Florida. Florida did make some good legislative moves that will get the attorneys out of the insurance adjusting biz. That and stopping roof claims will only make a small dent in the problem. Full disclosure I was an adjuster in Florida for 40 year.

[kkingston57]

+1 tophcfa

"- People living inland, who have significantly lower exposure to natural disaster risk, should not have their premiums jacked up to subsidize those who choose to live closer to harms way. If people living close to the shore can’t afford, or get, insurance then that shouldn’t be others problems for their riskier choices."

If folks want to live on the Florida coast or adjacent to the San Andreas Fault in California, they should be in their own group. I do not want to subsidize their risk at all. Here in Central Florida any one of us could have our house hit by lightening or a tornado, not as a result of our foolish decisions.

Agree, and in Central Florida our rates are much less than if we lived on the coast. In Palm Beach County our premium was 5K and when we moved to Central Florida price went down to $1200 and we had much more hurricane protection in S. Florida. We should be paying less here but suspect that our rates are going to sky rocket.

[Rainger99]

First, you are overlooking the fact that MOST people have insurance on their home that would cover hurricane damage. Typically, this doesn't cover FLOOD or STORM SURGE damage, but it does cover damage that is a direct result of the wind and any subsequent damage that may be done if the wind causes a roof leak or window breakage or other wind related damage.

Second, you are overlooking the fact that property insurers have RE-insurers which provide insurance to them in case of catastrophic losses. In other words, the insurance companies have insurance too to protect them against unusually large losses.

Third, not all hurricane damage losses are covered by insurance. Much of it is due to flood losses which (usually) aren't covered unless the person or business bought flood insurance which is very expensive. It's expensive because not everyone shares equally in the threat of flood damage.

People who live on high ground have no need for expensive flood insurance, so they don't buy it. People who live in flood-prone areas NEED flood insurance, but since the cost is usually quite high, many people don't buy it even though they may need it.

And finally, we can be thankful that an "Ian" level storm doesn't hit us every year. So, even if the insurance companies may lose money in one year, they can make it up in other years in which their losses are less. It's kind of like the gambling in Las Vegas. Occasionally the house may get hit for a big loss, but they make it up by winning many small bets... and most of the big ones too. :)

Even if an insurance company has reinsurance, that is just passing the losses onto another insurance company.

The reinsurance company has to pay so whether 50% of the losses are paid by the insurance company and 50% are paid by the reinsurance company, the premiums have to come from somewhere.

As for Ian being a rare occurrence and the insurance companies can make it up in previous years or future years, the fact is that insurance companies have been losing money over the long haul. I don’t think they would be pulling out if property insurance were profitable in Florida. And as I understand it, to get rate increases, insurance companies have to get approval from the state regulators. They can’t just raise your rates.

[Rainger99]

Full disclosure I was an adjuster in Florida for 40 year.

So if you were king, how would you fix the problem?

I don’t see a solution because insurance companies have to charge enough in premiums to cover claims - and some of them are over $100 billion. The money has to come from somewhere unless we put an increase taxes on those people who “aren’t paying their fair share.”

[tophcfa]

Second, you are overlooking the fact that property insurers have RE-insurers which provide insurance to them in case of catastrophic losses. In other words, the insurance companies have insurance too to protect them against unusually large losses.

I didn’t mention reinsurance in my previous post because it’s something many folks aren’t familiar with, and I didn’t want to muddy the waters. In its simplest form, reinsurance is just insurance risk traded in a private market between insurance companies. Reinsurers typically don’t actually write policies, they just assume risk, for a price, from other insurers that actually do write policies and need to offload risk to balance their portfolios overall risk profile. The property and casualty insurance business is all about properly pricing and diversifying risk, so statistically they will make a reasonable profit in the long run after cashing premium checks and paying out claims. Diversifying risk is of the absolute most paramount importance, so no single, or sequence of, unpredictable events will cause the entity a catastrophic loss. Reinsurers are no different than regular insurance companies in that they want to hold a very well diversified portfolio of properly priced risk. Unfortunately, tropical storms have become both more severe and less predictable, so pricing and managing the risk has become more problematic. At the same time, populations have migrated to areas like the Florida coastlines increasing the number of insured properties, while insured property values have skyrocketed, and insurers (both traditional and reinsurers) have no additional appetite for assuming more tropical storm risk without HUGH increases in premiums. Why did Farmers make the difficult decision to totally pull out of the Florida market? Because it got too expensive to reinsure the risk they needed to offload to have what they considered a properly diversified portfolio.

I’ll stop there, except to say that the insurance market is totally saturated with its ability to continue to absorb more tropical storm risk, without a very large corresponding increase in premiums. Think of in terms of a stock portfolio, which people can more easily understand. No one wants to own a portfolio of a few stocks, all in the same risky industry, with no diversification. If one event happens that totally rocks that particular industry, their portfolio would be toast.

Dam, I need a beer, I’m glad I retired from that $hit. I much prefer worrying about getting a good t time or an empty lane in a sports pool to swim laps. The important things in life : )

[ithos]

Florida did pass new legislation for insurance reform. Some law firms might not be pleased.

Florida insurance regulation creates big changes | Grant Thornton (https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/articles/insurance/2023/florida-insurance-regulation-creates-big-changes#.html)

Florida is known to be a an overly litigious state with respect to insurance. Florida’s insurance regulators estimate homeowner claims account for 9% of all claims in the U.S., but 79% of all insurance litigation. Florida has now eliminated one-way attorney fees. Now, if an insurer and an insured end up in court and the insured wins, the insurer does not need to pay for the insured’s legal fees. This move by regulators should drastically reduce the insurance companies’ costs.

[rvalukonis]

I agree with that. I would think that the roof scam would be a relatively easy fix.
Maybe the $100 billion damages number is 75% fraudulent but I have not seen any evidence of that.

But if you have legitimate losses of $100 billion, how can 21 million people pay for that?

A big portion of the expense/loss is infrastructure related borne by the state and local governments and utilities, not individual home owners.

[nn0wheremann]

Much of Florida is over populated and under engineered. The Miami-Dade standards alleviate much of the wind mitigation issue, but fall short when it comes to water intrusion, and roof ventilation. Fortunately we in The Villages, at least in the north districts, have adequate storm water control. Attic ventilation could be improved, so roofs would more likely last to their design lives.

[Blueblaze]

The same thing happened with "health insurance" when we quit calling it "hospitalization" and demanded that insurance companies pay for our doctor visits and prescriptions instead of merely life-threatening catastrophes.

It's got nothing to do with hurricanes, which have hit Florida every year since the beginning of time. It's about human avarice and idiots who demand that someone else pay for their life -- and roof, and doctor, and dentist, and oil changes, and vet bill -- and the moment some crook offers to insure against it, their groceries and tee time, too.

And EVERYONE suffers. You couldn't afford your roof before someone offered to replace it every time you lost a shingle. Now NOBODY can afford their roof OR their insurance. You couldn't afford to go to the doctor every six months without insurance, and now NOBODY can afford a doctor without insurance, and the insurance costs 10 times EVERY MONTH what your doctor used to cost for one visit a year before some crook offered to "insure" you. But lucky you! Now you're old and the gooberment pays that $1,500/month for you.

How to fix Florida insurance? Fix Florida residents so they quit asking insurance companies for handouts.

[garykoca427@gmail.com]

People living on the coast should pay more for insurance than people living inland. These should not be statewide rates for everyone.

[Rzepecki]

I agree with that. I would think that the roof scam would be a relatively easy fix.
Maybe the $100 billion damages number is 75% fraudulent but I have not seen any evidence of that.

But if you have legitimate losses of $100 billion, how can 21 million people pay for that?

The roof scam was started by the insurance companies and it backfired on them.

[ThirdOfFive]

I admit to not being very knowledgeable about how the insurance system works. I am in pretty much the same boat as many others, dealing with significant (more than significant?) increases in my insurance costs. And not just home insurance but auto, car, golf cart, etc. as well.

I am also paying the price of my own inattentiveness. Moving here three + years ago everything was happening at once, and in the space of three days we took care of every business item related to purchasing our new home, including insurance. Our quote was (for the time) pretty reasonable; we would be paying a little less for homeowner's insurance here, on a property valued at 30% more, than our home in Minnesota. However since then we have experienced two significant jumps in cost; one last year that totalled about 25% more than the annual cost of the insurance, and one just a couple of weeks ago where the premium increased by over $1,400.00 per year--and the only "explanation" was a blurb in the notification that the increase was per decision of the legislature allowing the jump, or some such.

We have an appointment with our local agent this morning to see what can be done. I expect no miracle fixes, but I DO expect that the possibility of losing all our business will be incentive enough for the agent to help us streamline things. I did notice among other things that my hurricane deductible for the policy was $500, and I do know enough about insurance to understand that lower deductibles mean higher premiums. If our agent is willing to work with us and go over the policy to help us trim the fat, we'll stay with them. Otherwise, I will be insurance shopping very soon.

This is something, I think, that all of us can do.

[MX rider]

People living on the coast should pay more for insurance than people living inland. These should not be statewide rates for everyone.
They already pay more. Our best friends have a home in Bonita Springs very similar to ours. They pay 3 times what we do. Probably going to be more when they renew.

[Joe C.]

Perhaps the insurance industry could make roof replacement a RIDER on the normal homeowner's insurance policy. Maybe make the rider a $1000.00 option. That way, the homeowner who has a new or newer roof can opt out of roof replacement for several years and take his/her chances. Also roof shingle manufacturers have a warranty.

[Wondering]

You are not considering Federal support - FEMA - in you calculations. Insurance companies are making record profits - greed!

[retiredguy123]

Perhaps the insurance industry could make roof replacement a RIDER on the normal homeowner's insurance policy. Maybe make the rider a $1000.00 option. That way, the homeowner who has a new or newer roof can opt out of roof replacement for several years and take his/her chances. Also roof shingle manufacturers have a warranty.
The problem is that the insurance company doesn't really care as much about a roof replacment. They are more concerned about the damage to the rest of the house and contents when an old roof blows away. That is why they require some homeowners to buy a new roof before they will insure them.

[Whitley]

I am not a legislator and I do not work for an insurance company but I assume that the insurance companies have lobbyists in Tallahassee and that they are in contact with the legislators.

The insurance companies do have lobbyists. I handle the finances for several COA's and HOA's in Florida. All of the Associations are paying in excess of 1,000,000.00 on insurance, with the highest breaking 2,000,000.00.
If you breakdown the cost of paying claims vs legal expenses, you may be shocked. While there are many people and groups abusing the system, the insurance companies are not innocent. I was at on meeting between the BOD and the insurance company. As you would expect everything was the blame of roofing companies, laws etc.. I pointed out the capital this specific provider spent in the prior year for legal expenses. I then asked him to confirm that over 70% of those cases (denial cases) were lost by the insurance company.There is plenty of blame to go around. Another COA I represent pays over 900k for Wind insurance. They have 21 buildings. Instead of one policy for 21 buildings we are required to have 21 policies, each with a 200k deductible. On top of that, we are spending large amounts to assure our roofs. Should there be a storm, the carrier does pay based on the remaining life of the roofs. Their issue is that they put a new membrane down on all 21 buildings, for which there are 12 years remaining on the material and labor warranty. The insurance providers show the value of each roof to be 0, as they do not recognize anything other than a new roof to reset the life expectancy. So many people, especially the elderly who have been living in these units for decades, are not able to afford the 1,500. monthly fees being driven mostly by insurance.

[Whitley]

People living on the coast should pay more for insurance than people living inland. These should not be statewide rates for everyone.

We/they do pay more. Much more.

[Whitley]

I'm sure there is someone here who is an insurance expert. Please, if possible, help me to understand. To obtain insurance we do not go to the provider, we go to an agent who then sends out requests (effectively blocking, which I will explain in a moment) to multiple providers and obtain quotes. Once a provider gives a quote on a property to an agent, they will not provide a quote for that property to a different agent. This suppresses competition from agents. It is important to see the request for a quote sent to the provider by the agent as many times I have found errors which resulted in higher premiums. So now we have quotes from one agent that he obtained from providers. The providers will then reinsure the policy with another provider like Minich, Swiss or Everest reinsurance. SO, we, the end user go to an agent who goes to a provider who goes to a reinsurance company. Is it necessary to have an agent. I know they make good money, as the one I deal with has several Tesla's, multiple homes, and wears Brioni. I can understand that we are not large enough to go to the final step, a reinsurer, but why can we not go directly to the provider, eliminating the agent. It can not be that he/she negotiates for lower rates better than we can. It is the agent's best interest when rates go up. X% of 1m is better than x% of 100k.

[Marine1974]

Farmers serves 100,000 customers in Florida but said there will be no impact to customers who use Farmers' owned subsidiaries like Foremost Signature and Bristol West.
The major insurance companies own smaller subsidiary companies that can file for bankruptcy if their exposure to natural disasters is too high .
They’re collecting your premiums with no intent to pay out claims if they can’t make a profit .

[Whitley]

They already pay more. Our best friends have a home in Bonita Springs very similar to ours. They pay 3 times what we do. Probably going to be more when they renew.

IF they can renew. Many people and organizations/associations are now with Citizen's Insurance, the insurer of last resort (namely the state insurance). During the past 5-10 years million dollar homes and hundreds of millions of dollar associations are now writing with Citizens. I urged my clients to go with Citizens 5+ years ago not because they are a great company (they are not) but because they have a reasonable cap on annual rate increases.

[ChilePepper]

Part of the problem is sites like this (and others) where people (or perhaps roofing trolls) have posted instances of insurance cancelations due to the age of their roof. If that is the case, I feel insurance companies should inspect and recertify roofs based on their structural integrity, not so much their age. I am pretty sure there have been some perfectly good 15, 20, or 25-year-old roofs that have been claimed and replaced because the homeowner felt the threat of being canceled, and of course, roofing company scammers prey on these folks.

[Fltpkr]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.

Just a thought -- Would it be helpful long term to have more stringent coastal restrictions that prevent or restrict rebuilding or new building in the high risk areas and/or require that more "hurricane and flood resistant" structures be adopted and existing structures modified?

Can existing ground-level home or business owners be required to modify their structures to a more hurricane-resistant design? For example, could all homeowners or business owners of ground level structures of one or two stories in high risk areas be required to modify their structures within 10 years so that they are elevated (on stilts) above a certain minimum height and resistant to specified high-level wind forces?

Are there infrastructure changes that would help reduce the damage from hurricane/tidal surge - such as the addition of break-waters, barrier islands, dunes, marshland, etc?

[Rainger99]

A big portion of the expense/loss is infrastructure related borne by the state and local governments and utilities, not individual home owners.

Those costs may not be paid for by our home insurance but we still pay for them either in taxes or rate increases.

[OhioBuckeye]

You know with this last hurricane & the damages I’m guessing Ins. rates will go up again. Yes, Ins. rates are terrible but I’m afraid everyone will see higher rates even if your state never got a hurricane or tornado. Time will tell!

[Vermilion Villager]

I am not a legislator and I do not work for an insurance company but I assume that the insurance companies have lobbyists in Tallahassee and that they are in contact with the legislators.
THEY DO and THEY ARE....and now you know why the costs in FL are so high. (so resisting the urge to go political)

[bcsnave]

just a thought -- would it be helpful long term to have more stringent coastal restrictions that prevent or restrict rebuilding or new building in the high risk areas and/or require that more "hurricane and flood resistant" structures be adopted and existing structures modified?

Can existing ground-level home or business owners be required to modify their structures to a more hurricane-resistant design? For example, could all homeowners or business owners of ground level structures of one or two stories in high risk areas be required to modify their structures within 10 years so that they are elevated (on stilts) above a certain minimum height and resistant to specified high-level wind forces?

Are there infrastructure changes that would help reduce the damage from hurricane/tidal surge - such as the addition of break-waters, barrier islands, dunes, marshland, etc?


i like your thinking...

[427dave]

Auto insurance has increased a lot since we moved here in 2001, mine has almost tripled and I have not had any accidents or tickets. Like the roof scams here I think the biggest reason is the lawyers. You see all these ads on TV about how many millions they have gotten for their clients. Guess who is paying for all these claims, we are because the insurance companies just raise the cost.

[jimjamuser]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.
I would just like to clarify paragraph 2. It should be.....if you multiply by the average number of people in each household, which would be 2.5 times 4700, which equals 11,750.

[retiredguy123]

I would just like to clarify paragraph 2. It should be.....if you multiply by the average number of people in each household, which would be 2.5 times 4700, which equals 11,750.
The problem is that the $100 billion in damages was not just to private homes. Much, if not most, of the damage was to other structures, like commercial and Government buildings and roads and bridges. I think it also includes debris removal and cleanup costs.

[jimjamuser]

Insurance is increasing nationwide, a good deal of it is at least partially due to the plethora of natural disasters. Not just a Florida problem.
A good time to ask WHAT is CAUSING that, "plethora of natural disasters"? The scientific community says that it is global warming caused by CO2 emissions (cars, trucks, and golf carts) that end up in the upper atmosphere and in the ocean (killing the coral reefs). The world's population in 1960 was 3 billion, today it is 9 billion....which means more polluting vehicles operating around the world.
......The UN stated that so far 2023 has the record for world temperatures. And each year from now on is predicted to have increased temperatures. This will CAUSE INSURANCE to keep rising, due to increased hurricanes, fires, and other natural disasters.
.......Interestingly, there is a recent factory in the US that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere and neutralizes it (in caves). But, there needs to be about 50 to 100 more such factories built by other countries around the world to begin to remove enough CO2 to reverse the global warming.
.........And therefore reduce insurance costs.

[jimjamuser]

Things can only be changed within the ability to control them. Nobody can change natural disasters. What can be changed?

- People living inland, who have significantly lower exposure to natural disaster risk, should not have their premiums jacked up to subsidize those who choose to live closer to harms way. If people living close to the shore can’t afford, or get, insurance then that shouldn’t be others problems for their riskier choices.
- Do something about the roofing scam, like pro-rating replacement based on age.
- Regulations on insurance companies needs to strike a delicate balance between protecting both the customers and the insurers. If the regulations are too onerous for insurers, they will simply pull out of the market. Insurance Companies are all about diversifying risk, unfortunately hurricane risk is next to impossible to diversify. It’s critical to have as many Companies as possible willing to write policies in the market to keep any individual company’s exposure to the region down, resulting in lower premiums. The opposite is happening in Florida, as evidenced by Farmers pulling entirely out of the state. That leads to thousands of homeowners looking for policies from a limited number of remaining insurers who have little or no appetite for more correlated risk that can’t be diversified away. Under that scenario, premiums can only go in one direction.
To answer the ? posted in the 1st paragraph. What can be done? CO2 pollution MUST be reduced. Since one can NOT control the population increases from 1960 to today, then, the answer is more new E-vehicles need to be purchased by US citizens. In the US 8% of new vehicles are ELECTRIC, in Europe it is 20%.
........Also, more factories to capture CO2.

[Stu from NYC]

A good time to ask WHAT is CAUSING that, "plethora of natural disasters"? The scientific community says that it is global warming caused by CO2 emissions (cars, trucks, and golf carts) that end up in the upper atmosphere and in the ocean (killing the coral reefs). The world's population in 1960 was 3 billion, today it is 9 billion....which means more polluting vehicles operating around the world.
......The UN stated that so far 2023 has the record for world temperatures. And each year from now on is predicted to have increased temperatures. This will CAUSE INSURANCE to keep rising, due to increased hurricanes, fires, and other natural disasters.
.......Interestingly, there is a recent factory in the US that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere and neutralizes it (in caves). But, there needs to be about 50 to 100 more such factories built by other countries around the world to begin to remove enough CO2 to reverse the global warming.
.........And therefore reduce insurance costs.

Well this might solve the problem in 20 years or so but think the better question is what can be done now to keep insurance costs more management in the next few years.

[jimjamuser]

I just pulled my insurance policy and looked at it. 75% of the premium is for hurricane exposure!! And my hurricane deductible is $6500.
Well, that is NOT a big surprise to me. Because scientists say that world HEAT is increasing (Antarctica ice is melting) .........water surrounding Florida will keep making new records for HEAT and that FUELS hurricanes.

[jimjamuser]

First, you are overlooking the fact that MOST people have insurance on their home that would cover hurricane damage. Typically, this doesn't cover FLOOD or STORM SURGE damage, but it does cover damage that is a direct result of the wind and any subsequent damage that may be done if the wind causes a roof leak or window breakage or other wind related damage.

Second, you are overlooking the fact that property insurers have RE-insurers which provide insurance to them in case of catastrophic losses. In other words, the insurance companies have insurance too to protect them against unusually large losses.

Third, not all hurricane damage losses are covered by insurance. Much of it is due to flood losses which (usually) aren't covered unless the person or business bought flood insurance which is very expensive. It's expensive because not everyone shares equally in the threat of flood damage.

People who live on high ground have no need for expensive flood insurance, so they don't buy it. People who live in flood-prone areas NEED flood insurance, but since the cost is usually quite high, many people don't buy it even though they may need it.

And finally, we can be thankful that an "Ian" level storm doesn't hit us every year. So, even if the insurance companies may lose money in one year, they can make it up in other years in which their losses are less. It's kind of like the gambling in Las Vegas. Occasionally the house may get hit for a big loss, but they make it up by winning many small bets... and most of the big ones too. :)
I would agree with the last paragraph if the HEAT level around the world (and population) had stayed the same as it was in 2010. Unfortunately, those factors have changed and the trend is predicted to increase.

[Topspinmo]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.

IMO Get rid of insurance lobbyist. Any lobbying should be 15 year prison term for both. Pass law if want sell insurance it’s all 50 state or none. Why should they get to pick me choose? Funny how they claim loosing money when upper management and CEOs rake in millions. Bottom line everyone expect the government to just bail them out. Too big to fail mentality

[rockyhyder]

FEMA estimated damage is calculated in the early stages of disaster recovery and is almost always over estimated, plus as pointed out by other posters represents losses by government agencies for roads, bridges and cleanup none of which are insured losses so the insured risk are much lower than the overall damage total.
IMHO the problem in Florida lies with two aspects of insurance risk.
1. Insurance regulations that heavily favor litigation against insurers resulting in higher losses than normal (e.g. free roof scam).
2. The Florida Legislature needs to amend insurance regulations separating the high risk coastal zones from the normal risk inland areas allowing insurance companies to choose the level of risk and apply the appropriate premium instead of insuring all or none.
I suspect number two will be a difficult sell because of the personal interest of Legislators and their friends.

[jimjamuser]

Just a thought -- Would it be helpful long term to have more stringent coastal restrictions that prevent or restrict rebuilding or new building in the high risk areas and/or require that more "hurricane and flood resistant" structures be adopted and existing structures modified?

Can existing ground-level home or business owners be required to modify their structures to a more hurricane-resistant design? For example, could all homeowners or business owners of ground level structures of one or two stories in high risk areas be required to modify their structures within 10 years so that they are elevated (on stilts) above a certain minimum height and resistant to specified high-level wind forces?

Are there infrastructure changes that would help reduce the damage from hurricane/tidal surge - such as the addition of break-waters, barrier islands, dunes, marshland, etc?
Oregon has a state policy to NOT allow residential or any building 1/2 mile from the ocean's edge. This rule gives protection for lives, and homes, and provides miles of walkable and bikeable beach.
........Please check that out and could it be done in Florida?

[Rainger99]

Oregon has a state policy to NOT allow residential or any building 1/2 mile from the ocean's edge. This rule gives protection for lives, and homes, and provides miles of walkable and bikeable beach.
........Please check that out and could it be done in Florida?

If you go on google maps, there is a lot of Florida property within a half mile of the beach!!! Millions of people would have to move.

[Stu from NYC]

Oregon has a state policy to NOT allow residential or any building 1/2 mile from the ocean's edge. This rule gives protection for lives, and homes, and provides miles of walkable and bikeable beach.
........Please check that out and could it be done in Florida?

Guess you have no answer as to how to fix this problem now as opposed to when we are all gone.

[JMintzer]

Well, that is NOT a big surprise to me. Because scientists say that world HEAT is increasing (Antarctica ice is melting) .........water surrounding Florida will keep making new records for HEAT and that FUELS hurricanes.

I would agree with the last paragraph if the HEAT level around the world (and population) had stayed the same as it was in 2010. Unfortunately, those factors have changed and the trend is predicted to increase.

Just like clockwork...

[JMintzer]

Oregon has a state policy to NOT allow residential or any building 1/2 mile from the ocean's edge. This rule gives protection for lives, and homes, and provides miles of walkable and bikeable beach.
........Please check that out and could it be done in Florida?

Incorrect... There is no such law...

Oregon’s land-use rules bump up against increasingly crowded shorelines - OPB (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/02/oregon-coast-land-use-laws-erosion-rip-rap-environment-vistas/)

[bcsnave]

Incorrect... There is no such law...

Oregon’s land-use rules bump up against increasingly crowded shorelines - OPB (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/02/oregon-coast-land-use-laws-erosion-rip-rap-environment-vistas/)

I love that you fact check. It is important that people verify verses just taking someones '"statement". Even then a person had to check for themself.

I applaude you sir.:BigApplause:

[Marsha11]

I just pulled my insurance policy and looked at it. 75% of the premium is for hurricane exposure!! And my hurricane deductible is $6500.

And, there has never hurricanes in The Villages. It gets a little windy with rain but in 13 years for us it's been OK. But the ins, has tripled. They will now only allow 10 years and then you won't have any. They depreciate at 10%per year.
Sounds great right? A metal roof is guaranteed by the mfg. For 50 years. The ins. Only allows 12 years.

[rustyp]

I am willing to take the risk of property damage. No mortgage - no bank telling me what to do. I am not willing to risk liability of someone suing me for whatever hangnail is the next money making scheme. Has anyone out there in TV been able to insure their home for liability only ?

[Flyers999]

Some TOTVers feel this topic has been discussed here too often, but I thank the OP for once again “bringing it to the table,” because it’s not going away. This is a Florida problem. According to the last 2020 census 97.1% of Floridians live “on the coastline.” Having different rates for different localities isn’t going to save us. We are in this together. We need billions of dollars to repair the damage done by last season’s hurricanes, not to mention hurricanes in the future. How many billions? Some articles say $109 billion, some $40 billion, but whatever it is, it is so high that the government has to get involved. I know Florida experienced an 11-year hurricane drought back in the 1994-2005, but apparently, we can’t depend on that happening again, anytime soon.

Here my solution, which we already have in place, sort of:

Insurance company’s homeowners' insurance no longer will cover wind or flood damage. Your homeowner's insurance will cover everything else, i.e., fire, liability, theft, etc. This would cut your insurance bill by a lot, say from $3,000 per year to $1,200 per year. The government would cover the wind/flood damage. They already have a fund for covering residential units that ins. companies won’t insure; it’s called Citizens Property Insurance which is a nonprofit company run by the Florida state government. Citizens is an "insurer of last resort." It only insures properties that private companies won't cover or won't provide affordable insurance for.

Citizens Property Insurance will be funded by an increase in your property taxes, which would increase by 1% of your home’s value.

Here’s the formula. There are 7,302,947 residential housing units in Florida. The average cost of a house in Florida is $377,000. Multiply 377k x 0.01 x 7,302,947 = $27.5 billion.

Of course, there could be some allowances made for the poor like disqualify those whose homes are worth less than $100k. So, they would get this insurance for free, but not entirely.

Not done yet, we will still need to adjust the claims, which should be your insurance company (I believe this is how Citizens Property Insurance does it, or do they hire their own adjusters?) . You would have to buy “regular” homeowners insure from a legitimate insurance company which must cover the basics like fire, theft, liability, etc. Then you would automatically be covered by Citizens Property Insurance for the wind/flood.

Don't like it? Well, what's your alternative? And not "the ins. companies and the government should get together and work something out." We want details.

[Pugchief]

Citizens Property Insurance will be funded by an increase in your property taxes, which would increase by 1% of your home’s value.



Wait, what?!? 1% per year? That would roughly double the current real estate tax.....

[Rainger99]

Some TOTVers feel this topic has been discussed here too often, but I thank the OP for once again “bringing it to the table,” because it’s not going away. This is a Florida problem. According to the last 2020 census 97.1% of Floridians live “on the coastline.” Having different rates for different localities isn’t going to save us. We are in this together. We need billions of dollars to repair the damage done by last season’s hurricanes, not to mention hurricanes in the future. How many billions? Some articles say $109 billion, some $40 billion, but whatever it is, it is so high that the government has to get involved. I know Florida experienced an 11-year hurricane drought back in the 1994-2005, but apparently, we can’t depend on that happening again, anytime soon.

Here my solution, which we already have in place, sort of:

Insurance company’s homeowners' insurance no longer will cover wind or flood damage. Your homeowner's insurance will cover everything else, i.e., fire, liability, theft, etc. This would cut your insurance bill by a lot, say from $3,000 per year to $1,200 per year. The government would cover the wind/flood damage. They already have a fund for covering residential units that ins. companies won’t insure; it’s called Citizens Property Insurance which is a nonprofit company run by the Florida state government. Citizens is an "insurer of last resort." It only insures properties that private companies won't cover or won't provide affordable insurance for.

Citizens Property Insurance will be funded by an increase in your property taxes, which would increase by 1% of your home’s value.

Here’s the formula. There are 7,302,947 residential housing units in Florida. The average cost of a house in Florida is $377,000. Multiply 377k x 0.01 x 7,302,947 = $27.5 billion.

Of course, there could be some allowances made for the poor like disqualify those whose homes are worth less than $100k. So, they would get this insurance for free, but not entirely.

Not done yet, we will still need to adjust the claims, which should be your insurance company (I believe this is how Citizens Property Insurance does it, or do they hire their own adjusters?) . You would have to buy “regular” homeowners insure from a legitimate insurance company which must cover the basics like fire, theft, liability, etc. Then you would automatically be covered by Citizens Property Insurance for the wind/flood.

Don't like it? Well, what's your alternative? And not "the ins. companies and the government should get together and work something out." We want details.

Interesting post.

We are going to have to pay high insurance premiums or move out of the state or come up with an innovative idea to pay for hurricane damages.

97% live on the coastline??? What is the definition of coastline?? I saw that it was about 75%.

Florida (https://coast.noaa.gov/states/florida.html)

[Stu from NYC]

Incorrect... There is no such law...

Oregon’s land-use rules bump up against increasingly crowded shorelines - OPB (https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/02/oregon-coast-land-use-laws-erosion-rip-rap-environment-vistas/)

Well it sounded good even if somebody made it up.

[Rainger99]

Rebuilding and replacement costs went up 55% between 2019 and 2022. And reinsurance has gone up between 30% and 40% after years of losses in the industry.

Why it's becoming harder and more expensive to get homeowners insurance | CNN Business (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/19/business/homeowners-insurance-more-expensive-climate/index.html)

[Jayhawk]

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses.

How Do Insurance Companies Make Money? Business Model Explained (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052015/what-main-business-model-insurance-companies.asp)

[MandoMan]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.

I believe that what the insurance industry really wants is the ability to require mandatory mediation for claims without letting policy holders go to court. Lawsuits in court cost insurance companies billions of dollars. Lawyers advertise on billboards and television that they can get you big money for your pain and suffering, so people sign up. Sometimes insurance companies fight the suit, but often they decide that it’s cheaper to settle, even for a lot of money. With the roof replacements, what happened is that lawyers threatened to sue if the replacement wasn’t covered, and insurance companies decided replacing the roof might cost $15,000, and fighting in court might cost the company $25,000 and take a year per case. They did what was cheaper and just raised our prices. A mediator might deny most of those roof claims.

Of course, lawyers in Florida have a lot of lobbyists talking to legislators, who know where their bread is buttered. The result is that they get to keep suing insurance companies, a few people get jackpots, and the rest of us pay more and more to insurance companies. Chances are (wild guess), if you weren’t allowed to sue insurance companies, your insurance would drop by a third.

Also, the cost to insurance companies for hurricanes is spread nationwide. It’s not just Florida insurance companies. And then the insurance companies also buy into re-insurance pools that are nationwide and help them cover the cost.

[OhioBuckeye]

If the Ins. companies paid for all the damages without the help of their clients they would go broke , no way they could fork out millions maybe billions & stay in business, yes I’m one of these stiffs that’s getting higher rates. Ins. companies are big scams on the tax payers!

[JRcorvette]

38 years in Insurance Claims…. The largest cost to insurance companies is law suites many of which are unwarranted. We need tort reform! Second the HO policies in FL need to have limitations on things like roofing… it should not be replacement cost it needs to be actual cash value ACV where your roof is depreciated based on age and condition. It may come to placing maximum limits on policies in order to keep costs down and companies willing to sell insurance here in FL. The National Flood policy placed limits on the amount you can collect many years ago.

[Rainger99]

With the roof replacements, what happened is that lawyers threatened to sue if the replacement wasn’t covered, and insurance companies decided replacing the roof might cost $15,000, and fighting in court might cost the company $25,000 and take a year per case. They did what was cheaper and just raised our prices. A mediator might deny most of those roof claims.

I tried to find something online about many claims are filed, how many are denied, how many end up in suit, how many go to trial, and how many end up with verdicts for plaintiffs and how many end with the insurance company winning. I couldn’t find any information.

Anyone here have any idea what the numbers are? If the cases go to trial and the insurance companies constantly lose, they probably should settle.

And do they usually lose in court but win in arbitration or mediation?

[OhioBuckeye]

You know I know someone in TV that their Ins. company wouldn’t renew their Ins. Policy until she had a new roof put on her house & a new Water Heater. I’m thinking why didn’t they tell them the yr. before or a few yrs. before they spent lots of money for they’re Ins. To me that’s a rip off! This is how Ins. companies stay in business, they’re other clients are paying for other peoples damage if I’m wrong tell me or explain it to me!

[golfing eagles]

So if you were king, how would you fix the problem?

I don’t see a solution because insurance companies have to charge enough in premiums to cover claims - and some of them are over $100 billion. The money has to come from somewhere unless we put an increase taxes on those people who “aren’t paying their fair share.”

By that may we assume you mean the 47% that pay no tax?????

[golfing eagles]

A good time to ask WHAT is CAUSING that, "plethora of natural disasters"? The scientific community says that it is global warming caused by CO2 emissions (cars, trucks, and golf carts) that end up in the upper atmosphere and in the ocean (killing the coral reefs). The world's population in 1960 was 3 billion, today it is 9 billion....which means more polluting vehicles operating around the world.
......The UN stated that so far 2023 has the record for world temperatures. And each year from now on is predicted to have increased temperatures. This will CAUSE INSURANCE to keep rising, due to increased hurricanes, fires, and other natural disasters.
.......Interestingly, there is a recent factory in the US that scrubs CO2 from the atmosphere and neutralizes it (in caves). But, there needs to be about 50 to 100 more such factories built by other countries around the world to begin to remove enough CO2 to reverse the global warming.
.........And therefore reduce insurance costs.

Jimmy One Note is back.....

[dougjb]

Whatever is done, it should not be to protect the insurance companies. The only reason there are so many law suits is because insurance companies are oriented to first deny the claim then they delay the claim. They do so so that the policyholder, strapped for cash to conduct the necessary repairs will take anything to get their life back in order.

Insurance companies love to pass the blame off to the plaintiff's bar, when, instead the blame falls plainly on the insurance companies. Moreover, insurance, originally created to share the risk of harm over a lot of policyholders now make a good chunk of their money by investing the premiums paid by policyholders in the markets. If you think this is not true, why not read Berkshire Hathway's annual report? That is Warren Buffett's company. Pay attention to how GEICO, a BH subsidiary, makes money.

As to roof repair, if the insurance company wrote policies to cover roof repair or replacement, then they should have to pay for roof repair or replacement. We, as citizens, should not protect the insurance companies from their own folly.

As to premiums, I think I would rather pay $3k per year to cover my $400 K house from catastrophes. And, if the insurance companies find they need to boost the premium, with the assent of state regulators, then that is what insurance is all about. As a home owner, I simply have to make a decision...hmmm...400k versus 3 or 4K.

[SusanStCatherine]

I believe that what the insurance industry really wants is the ability to require mandatory mediation for claims without letting policy holders go to court. Lawsuits in court cost insurance companies billions of dollars. Lawyers advertise on billboards and television that they can get you big money for your pain and suffering, so people sign up. Sometimes insurance companies fight the suit, but often they decide that it’s cheaper to settle, even for a lot of money. With the roof replacements, what happened is that lawyers threatened to sue if the replacement wasn’t covered, and insurance companies decided replacing the roof might cost $15,000, and fighting in court might cost the company $25,000 and take a year per case. They did what was cheaper and just raised our prices. A mediator might deny most of those roof claims.

Of course, lawyers in Florida have a lot of lobbyists talking to legislators, who know where their bread is buttered. The result is that they get to keep suing insurance companies, a few people get jackpots, and the rest of us pay more and more to insurance companies. Chances are (wild guess), if you weren’t allowed to sue insurance companies, your insurance would drop by a third.

Also, the cost to insurance companies for hurricanes is spread nationwide. It’s not just Florida insurance companies. And then the insurance companies also buy into re-insurance pools that are nationwide and help them cover the cost.

This seems to work for The Villages - you can't sue - you are forced to binding arbitration where they select the arbitrator and you have to pay for half of it. Read your purchase agreement and warranty addendum and the info on 2-10 Homebuyers Warranty.

[Jhrath7@gmail.com]

People are complaining about insurance costs going up. However, insurance is merely spreading the risk of losses over a large number of people. The chance of a single home burning down in a year is quite slim so insurance companies can sell home insurance to everyone in a city and use the premiums from those whose homes are not burned down to compensate the few policy holders whose homes are burned down. That is how it works in theory.

However, I am not sure if that works in the case of catastrophic losses such as hurricanes that hit thousands of homes and businesses. Hurricane Ian caused about $100 billion in damages in Florida. The population in Florida is about 21 million people and the average household is about 2.5 people. If you divide $100 billion by 21 million, that is about $4700 a person. If you multiply that by the number of households, each household would have to pay $11,750 just to pay for Ian.

Ian is a bit of an exception since Florida doesn't get an Ian every year. However, Florida gets hit with a hurricane about once every two years and seems to get hit with a major hurricane at least once a decade. Irma cost about $30 billion in 2017.

I am not an underwriter or an actuary but I don't see how people in Florida can pay enough insurance to cover their losses. Hopefully, there are some insurance people on this board that may have solutions.
Florida is one of 4 states in the nation that has the biggest problem with insurance. Write your representatives and let them know you are not happy

[Rainger99]

Florida is one of 4 states in the nation that has the biggest problem with insurance. Write your representatives and let them know you are not happy

Most people agree that there is a problem. What do I tell my representatives is the solution?

Limit premium increases to the rate of inflation?
Ban private insurance and have the state run the insurance program?
Require arbitration or mediation?

[Stu from NYC]

Most people agree that there is a problem. What do I tell my representatives is the solution?

Limit premium increases to the rate of inflation?
Ban private insurance and have the state run the insurance program?
Require arbitration or mediation?

Set up a panel of legislatures, insurance companies and people who understand completely how insurance works and let them come up with solutions.

[Pugchief]

38 years in Insurance Claims…. The largest cost to insurance companies is law suites many of which are unwarranted. We need tort reform!

Most of the legislators in congress (state and federal) are lawyers. They probably aren't going to do anything that harms the business of their colleagues. Also, the Trail Lawyers' Association is one of the most powerful lobbies. So in summary, don't hold your breath waiting for tort reform.

[ithos]

Most of the legislators in congress (state and federal) are lawyers. They probably aren't going to do anything that harms the business of their colleagues. Also, the Trail Lawyers' Association is one of the most powerful lobbies. So in summary, don't hold your breath waiting for tort reform.

Insurance companies fleeing the state has way of breaking the grip that trial lawyers had on legislators.

Can Lawmakers Save the Collapsing Florida Home Insurance Market? | Bankrate (https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/homeowners-insurance/florida-homeowners-insurance-crisis/)

There will be new insurance companies selling insurance after the hurricane season is over. I don't know how many will leave despite the new laws.

[Flyers999]

Most of the legislators in congress (state and federal) are lawyers. They probably aren't going to do anything that harms the business of their colleagues. Also, the Trail Lawyers' Association is one of the most powerful lobbies. So in summary, don't hold your breath waiting for tort reform.

Trial lawyers are big campaign contributors too.

[mickey100]

Florida is one of 4 states in the nation that has the biggest problem with insurance. Write your representatives and let them know you are not happy

Or else just elect new representatives who might actually DO something.....

[Fltpkr]

Insurance availability and affordability is one issue that probably unites most Floridians regardless of how they feel about other news-catching issues. Why is this not getting more serious and on-going attention in Tallahassee?

[JRcorvette]

Most people agree that there is a problem. What do I tell my representatives is the solution?

Limit premium increases to the rate of inflation?
Ban private insurance and have the state run the insurance program?
Require arbitration or mediation?

Your first two suggestions would be very bad.
1. If a Carrier can’t make a profit they simply will not sell insurance in the State making it even harder on us.
2. You do not want a Government (State) run insurance program. We already have Citizens Insurance and the claims process is not very popular with them. Government programs are very inefficient.
3. Mediation would help some but I still say the policy coverages need to be changed in some ways.