[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Bucco

WOW...you went right by the underlying situation here, and took the road many travel because it is easier...not right or correct, but just easy, and just as an aside...most of the critique comes from a political movement, not logic or goodness.

I am not in anyway a defender of any insurance company and recognize their lobby power.

However, this entire thing is a result of insurance companies being bilked over years in this arena.

You are not alone in saying this bill is not the best, but the astronomical amounts of money being "stolen" from them demanded some action.

No different than classes being held openly on how to defraud tax or welfare, and when the call comes to tighten everything up, we blame NOT those who caused the tightening, but those who want reform.

When folks were actually prosecuted for these scams, certain groups were outraged at insurance companies even questioning them.....hard to imagine but true.

There are two sides to all stories, and it's time we hear both before deciding that it is those "dirty, rich money grabbers". .......

...Those who practice this knee jerk reaction to situations like this need to understand it is ALWAYS the good hardworking folks who suffer, while those who cause the reforms are defended and protected.

I am a bit sensitive to this genre, having witnessed first hand those who "school" in stealing from our welfare programs, and then receiving passionate defense for their actions in certain quarters.

As an after thought, Citizens Property Insurance in 2009 paid EIGHTY FOUR MILLION dollars in losses. In 2010, they received THIRTY TWO MILLION dollars in premiums and the costs associated with those premiums was TWO HUNDRED FORTY FIVE MILLION dollars. Staggering losses and the law would not allow an increase in premiums more than 10% a year, but finally in 2011, sinkhole coverage was exempted from that cap.

The problem that you cite, Bucco--the problem of spending more revenue than a business or government takes in--is a concept many people do NOT want to acknowledge. SOLVENCY is a concept many do not want to know about.

The other concept people reject is that ALL premium payers suffer when the insurer's revenues and required reserves are less than the amounts needed to pay ALL claims....including the claims of those who are honest and do not scam nor leech off the honest payers. And so the scammers prevail and ruin it for the honest ones.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by janmcn

Insurance companies are not using State's funds, unless you have your insurance with Citizens, which very few Villages' residents have.

People who do not have sinkhole coverage are not covered for the kind of terrible thing that happened in Buttonwood. The homes there have not been declared uninhabitable by a government official. Therefore, they would not qualify under the catastrophic ground coverage.

Interesting.....can you breakdown the carriers and the percentage of those in The Villages who use them ?

Thanks

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

The problem that you cite, Bucco--the problem of spending more revenue than a business or government takes in--is a concept many people do NOT want to acknowledge. SOLVENCY is a concept many do not want to know about.

The other concept people reject is that ALL premium payers suffer when the insurer's revenues and required reserves are less than the amounts needed to pay ALL claims....including the claims of those who are honest and do not scam nor leech off the honest payers. And so the scammers prevail and ruin it for the honest ones.

Yes, solvency seems to be a dirty word, but THAT is what lead to this kind of wording in the new law, but nobody wants to hear any of that

[coolkayaker1]

I am confused by the fraud portion of the argument that the gov't and insurers have for either charging a large added premium or not insuring sinkholes.

Isn't a sinkhole--or documented damage from unstable ground--quite obvious to the insurance adjusters or the homeowners (and their attorneys)?

Please help me understand the fraud part of the equation. Thanks.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by coolkayaker1

I am confused by the fraud portion of the argument that the gov't and insurers have for either charging a large added premium or not insuring sinkholes.

Isn't a sinkhole--or documented damage from unstable ground--quite obvious to the insurance adjusters or the homeowners (and their attorneys)?

Please help me understand the fraud part of the equation. Thanks.

"Over the years, a significant, unexplained increase in sinkhole claims has happened in the Sunshine State. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation found that sinkhole costs jumped from $209 million in 2006 to $406 million in 2009.

Some insurers speculate fraudulent claims were to blame for this increase. According to the Florida Insurance Council, some policyholders often would file sinkhole claims because of minor cracking in walls and foundations -- and then use their claim settlements to pay other bills instead of fixing their homes. Dishonest public adjusters may have contributed to the problem by encouraging exaggerated claims and then taking a cut of the insurance payout, according to the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research."

Read more: New Florida law takes aim at sinkhole fraud

There are other stories, but the bottom line is that the insurance companies were taking a real beating, premiums versus payouts, and were restricted in that they could not raise rates more than 10% (this has been changed in the last few years to exempt sinkholes.

This will explain a bit about the premise of the law...

"Basics of the new law

The law seeks to cut down on sinkhole fraud and abuse of the system by:

" Defining the "structural damage" that insurers are required to cover. Previous laws required insurers to cover structural damage, but did not define it precisely. This let policyholders file claims for minor damages that may or may not have been sinkhole-related.
Creating time limits for filing claims. Policyholders now are limited to two years to file claims for suspected sinkhole damage. That leaves policyholders "more than enough time to assess damage and file claims," according to the American Insurance Association. This part of the law is intended to prevent a policyholder (perhaps encouraged by an unscrupulous adjuster) from filing a claim for a crack in the wall that appeared many years ago.
Making homeowners pay for testing. It can be difficult and expensive to prove that damage was caused by a sinkhole. Therefore, insurers often paid claims rather than spend the time and money to perform conclusive tests. The new law requires homeowners to notify an insurer within 60 days after a claim denial if they want a test performed. That homeowner then must pay half of testing costs, up to $2,500, under the law. If the test uncovers a sinkhole, the insurer must refund those costs."


Read more: New Florida law takes aim at sinkhole fraud


And this will spell out some pros and cons...

"Pros and cons

Opponents are concerned that the law favors insurers rather than consumers. In a July 2011 letter to the state's Office of Insurance Regulation, Florida state Sen. Mike Fasano called the law "the single most consumer unfriendly piece of legislation which was signed into law this decade."

Supporters, however, argue that questionable claims have been bleeding the industry dry and eventually would have caused premiums to spiral out of control. The law, according to the American Insurance Association, will "help to promote a competitive and vibrant insurance market."

Read more: New Florida law takes aim at sinkhole fraud


NOTE....I am not in the insurance industry, never worked in the insurance industry nor own stock in any insurance company.

My motivation for posting on this thread comes from the OP blaming The Villages, and another blaming the state legislature, instead of blaming those who bilk the system and make these kinds of things occur.

[Gat0r]

I can't believe that Citizens Property Insurance only made 32 million in 2009 they were the only place to get flood insurance in Florida. After Katrina I payed them over $5,000 a year for flood ins.They made more like 32 BILLION.All the homes that are on the water(lakes and ocean) have to have Citizens unless they are mortgage free.Maybe some of the claims for sink holes were fraudulent, they still investigated the damage and payed off.People didn't call them a say they had a sink hole and then they sent them a check for the price of there house.What do they do with the premium money,They invested it on wall street and probably doubled their money.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Gat0r

I can't believe that Citizens Property Insurance only made 32 million in 2009 they were the only place to get flood insurance in Florida. After Katrina I payed them over $5,000 a year for flood ins.They made more like 32 BILLION.All the homes that are on the water(lakes and ocean) have to have Citizens unless they are mortgage free.Maybe some of the claims for sink holes were fraudulent, they still investigated the damage and payed off.People didn't call them a say they had a sink hole and then they sent them a check for the price of there house.What do they do with the premium money,They invested it on wall street and probably doubled their money.

Well, I do not know the insurance industry as well as you obviously do. I cannot only speak to the hearings on the new law and various news media sources.

A few years back, in Tampa, a number of articles on fraud associated with sinkholes.

If you know what you speak of, I will surely bow to your expertise but if you are correct, there should be an investigation. Even those opposed to the new law did not deny the fraud.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by juliawindsor

Can you share the name of your insurance company with us all?
Thanks.

May I ask why ?

Not being a wise guy, but the OP took The Villages to task on the new law...and it is the new law that is the subject of the thread. In addition there is a move to get coverage away from Citizens and back into the private sector, since it will reduce the cost to our state

[Gat0r]

Citizens was the only insurance you could get for flood insurance in FL.All the other companies bailed out of FL after Katrina in 2005.If you live on the water you have to have wind,flood and home owners.So you have to get wind from one company flood from another and home owners from another.Any time large sums of money are moving there is fraud (Iraq)and dishonest people.The Great Wall of China was only as secure as the gate keepers honesty.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Gat0r

Citizens was the only insurance you could get for flood insurance in FL.All the other companies bailed out of FL after Katrina in 2005.If you live on the water you have to have wind,flood and home owners.So you have to get wind from one company flood from another and home owners from another.Any time large sums of money are moving there is fraud (Iraq)and dishonest people.The Great Wall of China was only as secure as the gate keepers honesty.

And your point about the language in the new law ????????

[vinnie]

Assuming you have sinkhole insurance with 10% deductible, then if your home is appraised at 300k on your tax bill, then you are responsible for the first 10% meaning you have to pay for first $30,000.
If the damage is $40,000, you still pay 30k and insurance pays 10k.
If your neighbor has one in his yard or partially/totally destroys his house, then you are screwed anyway because why would anyone want to buy your house...being next to sinkhole
If you have a sinkhole in your yard, you are not covered.
If you do not have sinkhole insurance and your house is totally destroyed/uninhabitable, then you are complewtely covered without any 10% deductible.
I chose to take the gamble and not pay additional $450 in sinkhole coverage.
It is definitely a personal decision. You have to be able to put your head on the pillow at night. I just thought I would explain this sinkhole additional coverage....as it was explained to me.

[jaimeG]

A few years ago we would not even be having this discussion on sinkholes and coverages of sinkholes. Because almost all aspects of a sinkhole were covered under a standard policy not as an add on. Insurance company's are company's and they noticed they were paying out to much in claims money in Florida for sinkholes. They lobbied the state and influenced changes to the law concerning sinkholes. It was a major change to all home insurance policy's and now we have to live with it.

Sinkholes are everywhere in Florida and not going away any time soon. However that does not mean you are not protected or need the added sinkhole coverage on your policy. The Catastrophic Ground Cover Collapse (CGCC) on your policy covers your home and attached structures in the event of a sinkhole when your home is unsafe or condemned. I know that sounds scary but that's the coverage in Florida.

Now you can get an extra add on to your policy called sinkhole coverage. This a comprehensive coverage and covers damage that a sinkhole might cause that is not covered under the CGCC. Because this is an add on to a policy it does raise the price of your premium. It also has a minimum of a 10% deductible, which means a house that has a 300k policy limit has a 30k delectable. If any repair is under the deductible you will be responsible for the total bill. If you report a claim that is not under CGCC and under your sinkhole coverage the insurance company will inspect to verify that the damage is a result of a sinkhole. If your house is settling its not covered under sinkhole coverage. If you have any issues like crack in walls, they must be non maintenance and checked to see if its from a sinkhole.

To obtain the add on sinkhole coverage you must pay for an inspection up front and that is non refundable. If your house passes inspection you can still be denied if your area has has a sinkhole in the area. The insurance carrier determines the radius of the area they check.

If you make a claim on the policy for CGCC or sinkhole coverage the insurance company may non-renew you. And since the claim was on a sinkhole 99.9% insurance company's will not offer you a policy. Also the next buyers will have the same problem in finding coverage. So that will affect the sale of the property. Of course you can not avoid a claim when it comes to CGCC, that is when you should make a claim. Be aware of this because if you choose the add on coverage and use it for something you could of paid for or ignored it will have consequences.

However the sinkhole coverage might not be all its cracked up to be. With the lot lines the way they are in TV. The chances of a 100k or 200k in damages and not damaging the house to make it unsafe are almost impossible. Everyone needs to weigh the options and the pro's and con's. The extra coverage for sinkholes may not be worth adding to your policy. TV insurance adds the coverage on when they can, but they add it on at a cost. They are not including it and its not standard, remember commission is made on any add on to a policy. They should go over the pro's and con's of it with you. To an earlier post TV insurance is now TV insurance partners and is run by a Tampa agency. The Villages sold a stake to BKS-partnership hence the name change.

[bimmertl]

[QUOTE=vinnie;867110]Assuming you have sinkhole insurance with 10% deductible, then if your home is appraised at 300k on your tax bill, then you are responsible for the first 10% meaning you have to pay for first $30,000.
If the damage is $40,000, you still pay 30k and insurance pays 10k.

Your tax bill has nothing to do with your deductible. The deductible is based upon the amount of your dwelling coverage on your HO policy. Your tax bill is based upon the value of the house and lot. Typically your dwelling coverage reflects the cost of rebuilding your home and the value of the lot isn't included. So the dwelling portion of your HO policy is usually less than the "market value" of your house and is the basis for the deductible.

[Cathy H]

To clear the air here a little, does anyone have or know how to get insurance for restoration of your property even when a sinkhole does not affect your house but really messes up your driveway and your ability to sell your home in the future?

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by Cathy H

To clear the air here a little, does anyone have or know how to get insurance for restoration of your property even when a sinkhole does not affect your house but really messes up your driveway and your ability to sell your home in the future?

If you have sinkhole insurance you would call your insurance company and they would send out an adjustor.