SC State Insurance director dropped by his own carrier....HAHAHA!

[TalkingDog]

http://www.beaufortgazette.com/local_news/story/6651343p-5926903c.html

"Like thousands of other coastal residents before him, he received a letter about three weeks ago saying his policy would be dropped."


Homeowners insurance, but if there is justice in the world his health insurance company will drop him next.



My Favorite Master Artist: Karen Parker GhostWoman Studios

[nosillies]

1. What's so funny about it? Maybe I'm missing something.

Perhaps if a high-ranking executive for an insurance company had his policy dropped, then the irony would be apparent. What exactly was this guy doing wrong that made him deserve this "justice?"

Which isn't to say Richardson and the state government has done nothing -- the state legislature approved a package of coastal insurance reforms in June that Richardson and Sanford proposed. The package includes:

Tax breaks for insurance companies that provide coverage in the wind pool territory;

Tax breaks for property owners that create special catastrophe savings accounts or reinforce their homes against storms;

Extending cancellation notices to a minimum of 90 days for policies that cover hurricane season.

The state also expanded areas eligible for wind pool coverage.

No one (other than insurance execs) benefits when insurance companies are allowed to dump policies and state-backed insurers must pick up the slack. Sounds like this guy actually has a clue:

Owen Hand of St. Helena Island said he recently learned that Nationwide will drop his wind and hail policy but didn't take any consolation from learning that Richardson was in the same boat.

"I don't wish that on anybody. There's no comfort from knowing that," Hand said.

[TalkingDog]

2. Not missing anything. I'm just a cruel heartless person. ....Really.

Lessee.

You can't drive a car without insurance. It is required by law.
Mortgage insurance...required by law. (This was changed in 98 to reduce the amount of time a buyer had to keep paying. It used to be for the entire life of the mortgage)

And yet, although insurance is REQUIRED by the goverment, insurance companies are considered an independent agency from the government. Companies that make a lot of unregulated money. Companies that have lots and lots of people to lobby for them with all that unregulated money. People to lobby on the insurance companies behalf so that requirements for insurance benefit the insurance company. And likewise the insurance companies can refuse to pay out on claims (as they did en masse after Katrina) and although the goverment sometimes sides with the homeowner, it is not very often.

Because the unchecked capitalism that abandons people who pay for protection that suddenly evaporates is good fun. Don't you agree?

Or wait. Isn't this the guy that's supposed to help "regulate" all that?

[nosillies]

3. Mortgage insurance is not required by law

I have had numerous mortgages and have never had mortgage insurance. And for those who do pay this type of insurance, it's required by the mortgage company, not by law.

Also, homeowner's insurance is not required for those whose homes are paid for. Even for those who must have homeowner's insurance, the amount of coverage required can be quite low.

Other than that, I completely agree with your points. I live on the coast in Florida, but am from Louisiana, so I actually eat sleep and breathe this problem every single day. I think insurance companies are evil bottom-feeders, for the most part. However, the state insurance regulator does not work for the insurance companies. He works for the state. He must work hard to pass regulations that benefit the state's citizens. Seems like this guy has already started doing that, as evidenced by the first text I quoted.

I think in states like Florida and Louisiana and South Carolina, the legislatures should pass laws that ban all insurers and any of their subsidiaries from doing any type of business in the state unless they insure x amount of properties for x types of damages at rates no higher than x dollars. However, I believe some lawmakers hesitate to do so because they worry about the repercussions that consumers would face and the millions of dollars the taxpayers would fork over so that the states could defend the myriad of lawsuits brought against them by the insurance companies. And yes, I believe there are some lawmakers who won't do this becuase they're beholden to the insurance companies. I'm not naive. If you have examples of Richardson doing so, please share them.

Yes, there needs to be a huge amount of insurance reform. But I don't know what exactly Scott Richardson is supposed to be doing to single-handedly change laws nationwide, however. (And I do believe it will take nation-wide changes, because I don't think any state has the resources needed to fight the big insurance companies.)

Insurance problems are non-partisan problems. They affect everyone. And at least here in Florida, people of all political stripes are trying to fight the insurance companies. Things aren't happening fast enough to satisfy me, but reform on this level never does.

Perhaps you have further information about Richardson that shows that he is actually working against the citizens of his state in cahoots with the insurance companies? Then your enmity toward him would make sense. If not, then I have to ask -- would you also make just as much fun of a Democratic insurance regulator who had his coverage dropped? Or are you just being childish?