Do you think 71% is too high a %? Is that number accurate? Do other states cap fees ar a % of settlement?
State Farm is expanding coverage in Florida. Plan is to take over 20% of Citizens policies. Amid Florida insurance departures, one company is expanding
When Tower Hill canceled our home insurance, my wife had the idea to call State Farm, who is our long time auto insurer. They bundled the insurance and it turned out to be cheaper than Tower Hill. We were stunned, particularly given the other-worldly quotes we were given by other homeowner insurers. Definitely a win for my wife.
I’m certainly not an expert in the industry, but I do know a little. I’ll answer the question this way - that cited report was a statistical analysis drawn up by the insurance lobby. I instinctively don’t believe the numbers. I think a fair study would look, in each case, what (if any) the insurer offered to pay vs. what the insurer was ordered to pay in the claim. The report gobs together attorneys fees and adjuster fees. Those are separate. But even accepting the report and true and fair in all respects, and assuming the number represents that the insurer paid 71% to the lawyers and adjusters directly (that’s not how it works), that means that in that large sample case, the insurance companies were found to have failed to meet their obligations owed under their policies. When the insurer fails to meet its contractual duty, what is the insured supposed to do? And think how intimidating it is to have to seek judicial relief against billion dollar companies. Are there unscrupulous lawyers and roofers ( get a free roof) and adjusters? Absolutely!! But the same is true in the insurance industry.
Isn’t that also called ordinance and law coverage. Having the extra 25% saved my butt when I had a total loss due to fire in 2020.
No it isn't the same. Ordinance and law would only trigger if the home needed to be built up to code. It wouldn't trigger for any other reason like increased cost of materials and construction etc. I would make sure to have both though, especially if folks have an older home.
As I understood it if the local municipality determined the home had x% damage then it would need to be brought up to current codes. Mine was declared a total loss due to fire thus I got policy limits, but due to the home being from 1982, I was able to dig into the L&O coverage. Unless you’re over the limits the cost to repair should be covered regardless of the increased costs, no? Certainly there might be some haggling with the insurance company. Unless you’re saying they are depreciating the value of the structure, mechanical units or finishings? I’m guessing each situation varies…
Let's say your home is 4 years old. A cat 4 or 5 wipes out a large area including your home. What happens to construction costs in that area to rebuild your home along with all the others that have been wiped out? They increase significantly, your limits of say $500,000 will no longer rebuild a like home. That's where ERC would trigger
Its pretty standard that both are included automatically, but obviously that can vary depending on who you are buying a policy from. ERC is usually preconditioned on insuring your home 100%+ to value though.
I see policies all the time with ERC not included, even more so recently with increasing premiums and agents trying to cut premiums to gain the business. RCC is has also been an issue as it can be pricey.
That's a very risky strategy. If you have a mortgage it's not an option as lenders won't accept x wind in FL.
I have an unusual homeowners issue. When I sold my condo on the beach and bought a home inland. The title company or someone involved in closing was supposed to cancel my condo insurance. Didn’t happen. I’m receiving calls from my old insurance company warning of my insurance not renewing on the 25th of this month. I’ve made calls, docusigned emails for the cancellation, and emailed the closing statement on my condo. Still getting warning calls and emails. I just called again and was told to ignore the reminders that the info is in the system. And to think,,, some homeowners can’t get coverage. The condo is on the beach and in a flood zone. SMDH
Probably because your condo is an HO6 policy as opposed to a HO3. HO6 is only contents coverage and much less expensive to pay in event of a claim
No mortgage and I could pay for anything short of a complete loss. I'm not near the coast or a flood zone and for someone to get onto my property, other than my driveway, to fall down and hurt themselves, they'd have to get over an 8' high block wall or through an electronic gate. If they did that while I was home, I'd be dealing with their estate. Fire, however, is always a genuine concern.
X wind not a bad option then. You could also get a policy with a large hurricane deductible that would provide coverage and significantly reduce your premiums. Most carriers will offer as high as 10%
I'll check with my carrier and see what jacking up the deductible would do. Again, I can't shop carriers due to the age of my roof. I'd be OK with a 20-25% deductible, if that was available. Thank you for the suggestion.
Less companies means more power (less competition) and higher prices from the ones leftover. I would like to see many more, reputable, insurance companies enter the Florida market.
I’ve owned a rental for 15 years, did a total gut on it so we never got Windstorm. Been paying $500/year for about 14 years, this year they jacked it to $2000. That’s just for hazard ins. We figured short of a CAT 5 coming into Daytona area we might need to do a roof, but that’s something We can do for 4k plus labor. Well ahead of the game at this point.
