Florida insurance controversies

[ecopal]

In 2002 Florida lawmakers created the Citizens Insurance Corporation which is the states insurer of last resort .

Citizens was given the authority by the legislature to to balance its budget by imposing an assessment on the states remaining residential property insurance companies.

In 2004 Citizens had a deficit of $516 million which was charged to those companies.

The private insurers can recover these extra costs by adding a surcharge to their premium.

So essentially that surcharge is like a tax imposed on those to live in less hazardous areas of Florida to subsidize those who built in more hazardous areas such as on the beachfront.

[TooFarTampa]

If the only people insured by Citizens were beachfront owners, I would share your concerns. But there are lots of people like my 73 yo dad, who has lived in the same modest ranch house inland in Pinellas County for 15 years, who recently had to get Citizens coverage because his current company dropped him and nobody else will cover him.

The mess that is Citizens has nothing to do with the beachfront owners and everything to do with the way it has been run, and the fact that most other homeowners insurance companies are running away from this state.

[SHELLY]

The mess that is Citizens has nothing to do with the beachfront owners and everything to do with the way it has been run, and the fact that most other homeowners insurance companies are running away from this state.

If Citizen's worked like a "real" insurance company they would be cranking rates through the roof for Gulf front homes--or not insuring them at all. The insurance game is all about RISK....your dad IS paying to subsidize those Gulf front properties--we ALL are.

[30A Skunkape]

Again, apples and oranges, but in Louisiana, Citizens is required by law to be expensive and strictly a last resort insurer. However, more and more people are finding it impossible to get a homeowner's policy from the big boys and must go with Citizens. The middle class are finding a mortgage note too hefty to tote;this is a bad, bad thing. :(

[TooFarTampa]

If Citizen's worked like a "real" insurance company they would be cranking rates through the roof for Gulf front homes--or not insuring them at all. The insurance game is all about RISK....your dad IS paying to subsidize those Gulf front properties--we ALL are.

I agree with you there Shelly. But it sounded like ecopal was inferring that the only homes covered by Citizens are "at-risk" homes, when we know that is definitely not the case.

I think we can all agree that Citizens is a mess and we are not any closer to resolving the insurance issues. I have read about the talk about Citizens possibly dropping homes (actual structures) valued at $1 million or more, which does not include the value of any land underneath. That is an interesting concept, because apparently many of those homeowners can have their homes insured for less money by a different type of insurer (Lloyds of London I believe is one example). But at the same time those policies are extremely complicated and may not offer the best coverage. I'm not sure that Citizens dropping them is a panacea. Like you, I say just charge them the true value of the policy. Put some more actuaries to work and figure out what their load should be.

[Smiling JOe]

I agree with you there Shelly. But it sounded like ecopal was inferring that the only homes covered by Citizens are "at-risk" homes, when we know that is definitely not the case.

I think we can all agree that Citizens is a mess and we are not any closer to resolving the insurance issues. I have read about the talk about Citizens possibly dropping homes (actual structures) valued at $1 million or more, which does not include the value of any land underneath. That is an interesting concept, because apparently many of those homeowners can have their homes insured for less money by a different type of insurer (Lloyds of London I believe is one example). But at the same time those policies are extremely complicated and may not offer the best coverage. I'm not sure that Citizens dropping them is a panacea. Like you, I say just charge them the true value of the policy. Put some more actuaries to work and figure out what their load should be.Both ecopal and Shelly are suggesting that only Beach Front owners are causing these assessments. Have you not noticed that almost the entire Florida penisula has been hit hard with storms the last two years? Hello, you can pull your heads out of the sand now. With State Farm, Allstate and Nation Wide not isuing new policies for homes located within 2000 ft of the Gulf or 500 ft from the Bay or major bayous, Citizens may be the only choice for homeowners in those areas. Sure, that is beach front relative to lets say Kentucky!, but it is not really beach front, now is it?

[ecopal]

Both ecopal and Shelly are suggesting that only Beach Front owners are causing these assessments. Have you not noticed that almost the entire Florida penisula has been hit hard with storms the last two years? Hello, you can pull your heads out of the sand now. With State Farm, Allstate and Nation Wide not isuing new policies for homes located within 2000 ft of the Gulf or 500 ft from the Bay or major bayous, Citizens may be the only choice for homeowners in those areas. Sure, that is beach front relative to lets say Kentucky!, but it is not really beach front, now is it?


Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post .

I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said “such as the beach front”.

Of course I know many non beach front owners have to rely on Citizens. But it is obvious that some property is riskier than others to insure.

It is no mystery why insurance companies do not want to insure beach front property. The closer you are to the Gulf the higher the hurricane winds and the higher the probability for a greater degree of destruction.

Although lets not forget that inland they are more prone to spinoff tornados than homes near the beach. I wonder if the insurance companies considered that?

A home close to the beach is more likely to experience a greater degree of damage. That would increase the likelihood of a home closer to the beach exceeding its 2% deductible and tapping into the Citizens insurance fund. Most of us further back may never meet our 2% deductibles if we were built to the recent codes.


The insurance industry seems to feel that just about every house in Florida is too risky to insure. They say the only reason they stay in Florida at all is so they can write auto insurance etc.

But I don’t feel that the only criterion for canceling coverage is the degree of danger a property is in.

I think they are giving preference to people who live here probably because they are a potential buyer of other insurance products they want to sell. They might also be looking at your income level, age and education levels.

Another discriminator seems to be when your house was built or to what building code standard.

Also, we have to consider a hidden agenda by the insurance companies to get some concession from the state.

Also, maybe the insurance companies aren’t as smart as they think they are at handicapping risk.

[Smiling JOe]

Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post .

I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said “such as the beach front”.

Of course I know many non beach front owners have to rely on Citizens. But it is obvious that some property is riskier than others to insure.

It is no mystery why insurance companies do not want to insure beach front property. The closer you are to the Gulf the higher the hurricane winds and the higher the probability for a greater degree of destruction.

Although lets not forget that inland they are more prone to spinoff tornados than homes near the beach. I wonder if the insurance companies considered that?


Yes, I bet you are right. Those insurance companies never thought about tornado damage potential since those claims won't affect the insurance companies at all. Yeah, right! Tu es muy loco.


So essentially that surcharge is like a tax imposed on those to live in less hazardous areas of Florida to subsidize those who built in more hazardous areas such as on the beachfront.

Yes, you did say that, but why only point out one portion of the affected properties? By not mentioning all inland areas which were on record as being affected by the storms, you are implying that the Beach Front areas carry more weight. I bet you that in the state of Florida, the there were more non-beach front properties damaged by the storms than beach front -- in the number of properties and number in dollars. Almost the entire state of FL was affected by at least one of the storms from the previous two years. The panhandle of Florida is only a part of the state. ;-)

[SHELLY]

CITIZEN'S IS BACK AT IT AGAIN:

Citizens seeks higher rate increases
Insurance could go up 20 percent for some condos
Paige St. John
News Journal capital bureau

TALLAHASSEE -- Citizens Property Insurance is seeking further rate inreases -- up to 20 percent statewide for high-rise condos -- to keep ahead of private company prices in Florida's eroding insurance market.

The state-run insurer of last resort on Thursday approved seeking the rate request for about 18,000 commercial residential associations -- mostly large condominium complexes on the coast -- without knowing the exact amount it will seek.

Citizens has 169 such commercial-residential policies in Escambia County and 32 in Santa Rosa County.

The increase is intended to match a 38 percent rate hike approved in February for QBE Insurance Corp.

Citizens plans to finish calculations and submit its filing to the Office of Insurance Regulation by the end of next week. By law, the state-run company must have rates higher than private companies so it doesn't compete for that business.

"We have been hearing for some time now that Citizens' rates are competitive in that line, and that's not good," said Scott Johnson, vice president of the Florida Association of Insurance Agents.

The consumer-subsidized insurer expects a $1.7 billion deficit for 2005 hurricanes, on top of the $516 million bill passed on to Floridians last year.

In the interim, Citizens is digging deeper into its reserves to pay claims. The board on Thursday approved a second withdrawal, of $300 million, from reserves. Financial advisers this week recommended Citizens borrow or line up credit for $3.5 billion as soon as possible to raise cash for future storm seasons.

Citizens Property Insurance already has rate increase filings pending before state regulators that would raise rates an average 80 percent for coastal residents and 50 percent for inland dwellers. Its rates for commercial residential policies have not been raised in the last year.

[ecopal]

I feel that the assumption that all beach front homes are the most at risk for hurricane wind damage than some of those further inland is faulty.

However before I pursue this defense of BF homes I should respond to SJ.


.... I bet you that in the state of Florida, the there were more non-beach front properties damaged by the storms than beach front -- in the number of properties and number in dollars. Almost the entire state of FL was affected by at least one of the storms from the previous two years. The panhandle of Florida is only a part of the state. ;-)

Response to SJ:
In proportion to the number of units insured there probably would be a higher percentage of homes on or very near the beach (lets say within a block -this I agree is arbitrary but probably as accurate as the insurance company criteria) exceeding the 2% deductible than those further inland.

Of course there are more inland claims than from those closest the beach front. There are also considerably more inland homes paying into the insurance fund to cover the losses of the inland homes.

You really don’t think that in a hurricane the percentage of homes near or on the beach exceeding the 2% deductible would far exceed the proportion of inland homes exceeding the 2% deduction?

You don’t think that $ losses would come disproportionately from homes on or close to the beach front?

You don’t think that if you pooled the beach homes separately from inland homes that the beach front pool would experience significantly more % of dollar losses?

You really don’t think that insurance rates could be lower
if beach homes were not in the pool?



My concerns about insurance policies:

We all pay for Citizen’s over budget losses even though we are not considered a candidate for canceling by a private insurer. Even though I am not insured through Citizens I have to pay a “tax” added to my insurance bill to support losses incurred by those rightly or wrongly placed in the high risk pool.

However, I think that in regards to windstorm damage it is unfair to assume that in all cases beach homes would sustain the most damage. Many of the newer homes (especially those on the beach and within 1/4 mile of the beach which by code had to be built to higher wind load standards) are built rather sturdily and may sustain less damage than a less well built house further inland.

Also as SJ and I agree on , inland structures are also more susptible to more powerful spin off tornadoes than structures close to the beach-spinoff tornados usually are not as strong as those inland).

Many of the newer well built beach front homes I see would survive most hurricanes as long as storm surge didn’t get them. I feel that insurance companies are unfairly discriminating against some owners who have made good choices on their building location and quality of construction.

The exposure to hurricane damage would also vary on our exposure to the wind. A house on an exposed hill in Blue Mt. Beach or one of those multistory tower houses might sustain wind loads as much or more as experienced on the beach.

A house located within a couple blocks of the beach behind a large wind block such as a large condo may be more protected from wind than a house a half mile back. So for the sake of discussion lets use the terms “structures at risk for wind damage” or SARFWD rather than beach front.

There are homes being canceled which are no more at risk for wind damage than some that remain privately insured. I feel the criteria for SARFWD should be defined and applied more fairly to determine insurance rates and cancellations.

[Smiling JOe]

Response to SJ:
In proportion to the number of units insured there probably would be a higher percentage of homes on or very near the beach (lets say within a block -this I agree is arbitrary but probably as accurate as the insurance company criteria) exceeding the 2% deductible than those further inland.

Of course there are more inland claims than from those closest the beach front. There are also considerably more inland homes paying into the insurance fund to cover the losses of the inland homes.

You really don’t think that in a hurricane the percentage of homes near or on the beach exceeding the 2% deductible would far exceed the proportion of inland homes exceeding the 2% deduction?

You don’t think that $ losses would come disproportionately from homes on or close to the beach front?

You don’t think that if you pooled the beach homes separately from inland homes that the beach front pool would experience significantly more % of dollar losses?

You really don’t think that insurance rates could be lower
if beach homes were not in the pool?

...
Regarding your first paragraph, yes, that is true. However, we are not talking about proportions. We are talking total costs of damaged homes. I don't disagree with those statements, but in your original post, you did not mention anything about "proportionally speaking."

For the rest of the chatter, please stop trying to tell me what I think. You are making statements, not phrasing quesitons.

[ecopal]

Regarding your first paragraph, yes, that is true. However, we are not talking about proportions. We are talking total costs of damaged homes. I don't disagree with those statements, but in your original post, you did not mention anything about "proportionally speaking."

For the rest of the chatter, please stop trying to tell me what I think. You are making statements, not phrasing quesitons.


My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?

I was just attempting to exchange ideas and seek clarification of your opinions.

I hope you enjoy your vacation, it appears that you need one.

[Smiling JOe]

My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?

I was just attempting to exchange ideas and seek clarification of your opinions.

I hope you enjoy your vacation, it appears that you need one.Yes, you are just trying to exchange ideas. Right! This is not the first time you have suggested to put words in my mouth. It gets old very quickly. ;-)

[ecopal]

Yes, you are just trying to exchange ideas. Right! This is not the first time you have suggested to put words in my mouth. It gets old very quickly. ;-)

You are acting a little bizarre.
I really don't know what you are talking about or the relevance of it to this thread. :idontno:

[Smiling JOe]

You are acting a little bizarre.
I really don't know what you are talking about or the relevance of it to this thread. :idontno:
You are right. I am beginning to sound like two other people. I really need to stop hanging out with you guys -- I may be getting a bad reputation by association. :floor:Back to...whatever the topic was -- Insurance Controversies.

[TooFarTampa]

You don’t think that if you pooled the beach homes separately from inland homes that the beach front pool would experience significantly more % of dollar losses?

One thing that strikes me as odd about this idea is that there already is a separate pool for beach front (or coastal area) homes. It's called flood insurance. Many coastal homeowners are required to carry it depending on elevation -- as they should, because storm surge in general is more dangerous and powerful than hurricane winds.

I would venture to guess that most of the inland homes that got socked by strong winds as hurricanes crossed the state don't carry flood insurance. Along the coastlines, while winds may have caused similar damage, what really gets the coastal homes is the storm surge, which is covered by flood insurance not wind insurance, despite what the lawyers in New Orleans and Mississippi have tried to argue since Katrina. A hurricane (wind event) may cause the storm surge, but the policies are written as such that damage from the surge itself is covered by flood insurance and NOT the wind policies.

There are homes being canceled which are no more at risk for wind damage than some that remain privately insured. I feel the criteria for SARFWD should be defined and applied more fairly to determine insurance rates and cancellations.

There is nothing fair or standardized about what is happening here. Two bad hurricane seasons and most companies are turning tail and leaving because their private companies forsee few profits and tons of headaches. In order to "fix" this situation, the entire system and possibly the laws of the state of Florida are going to have to change, from what I can tell.

[ecopal]

One thing that strikes me as odd about this idea is that there already is a separate pool for beach front (or coastal area) homes. It's called flood insurance. Many coastal homeowners are required to carry it depending on elevation -- as they should, because storm surge in general is more dangerous and powerful than hurricane winds.

I would venture to guess that most of the inland homes that got socked by strong winds as hurricanes crossed the state don't carry flood insurance. Along the coastlines, while winds may have caused similar damage, what really gets the coastal homes is the storm surge, which is covered by flood insurance not wind insurance, despite what the lawyers in New Orleans and Mississippi have tried to argue since Katrina. A hurricane (wind event) may cause the storm surge, but the policies are written as such that damage from the surge itself is covered by flood insurance and NOT the wind policies.....

Thanks for your helpful input.

My post was only referring to the windstorm pool.
The concern over insurance cancellations and rate increases that I am most familiar with have primarily been for windstorm.

However, I am now hearing that flood zones are being revised resulting in much higher premiums in some areas. A friend told me that homes in Miramar beach just had a major rate hike for flood. They are apparently designated as a barrier island there.

I agree that storm surge causes considerably more damage than wind. In Mississippi that was readily apparent-not to mention N.O.

I also feel that many beach front homes that are properly built and engineered to the new codes are in more danger of being washed away by storm surge than blown appart by hurricane winds.


In Katrina homes 5 miles inland in Mississippi were flooded by storm surge because they were near inlets or bayous which acted as a funnel that actually pushed the surge level up as it went up the inlets. This could be a problem in areas like Ft. Walton Beach, the Bay, and some coastal lakes along 30a.Probably many more people should be buying flood insurance.


Fortunately most areas on 30A are blessed with elevations of over 30 feet. In fact 30A has the highest coastal elevations in the south and entire Gulf coast and Florida.

[TooFarTampa]

Thanks for your helpful input.

My post was only referring to the windstorm pool.
The concern over insurance cancellations and rate increases that I am most familiar with have primarily been for windstorm.

However, I am now hearing that flood zones are being revised resulting in much higher premiums in some areas. A friend told me that homes in Miramar beach just had a major rate hike for flood. They are apparently designated as a barrier island there.

I agree that storm surge causes considerably more damage than wind. In Mississippi that was readily apparent-not to mention N.O.

I also feel that many beach front homes that are properly built and engineered to the new codes are in more danger of being washed away by storm surge than blown appart by hurricane winds.


In Katrina homes 5 miles inland in Mississippi were flooded by storm surge because they were near inlets or bayous which acted as a funnel that actually pushed the surge level up as it went up the inlets. This could be a problem in areas like Ft. Walton Beach, the Bay, and some coastal lakes along 30a.Probably many more people should be buying flood insurance.


Fortunately most areas on 30A are blessed with elevations of over 30 feet. In fact 30A has the highest coastal elevations in the south and entire Gulf coast and Florida.

Good points ecopal. I guess what I was trying to say that if someone is going to measure hurricane damage in terms of dollars and try to base future insurance rates on past damage reports, I hope the number crunchers would break out "wind damage" dollars and "flood/storm surge damage" dollars when it comes to determining the cost of wind policies for coastal homes. I would really like to know how much wind payout on the coastline there has been recently vs. inland -- since as you point out, so much of the horrible damage you see on TV on the coasts was actually caused by flooding.

Once again I do feel fortunate that we own property in SoWal, not just because of the high elevations, but because the majority of the homes are built to the newer standards. That is about as good a situation as you can have if you are looking for a little piece of paradise. But the fact remains that at least for now, the cost of insurance is going to scare a lot of people away. And we could talk about it ad nauseum and I don't have confidence that anything good will come out of it, sadly.

[ecopal]

Note : this is from the Boston Globe

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/02/hurricane_risk_data_add_pressure_to_insurance_cost s/

Below are just excerpts........

Hurricane risk data add pressure to insurance costs

By Bruce Mohl, Globe Staff | April 2, 2006

The hurricane computer modeling company that kick-started the crisis with coastal home insurance three years ago -- and sent rates on Cape Cod and the islands soaring -- is back with more bad news.

Risk Management Solutions now says its earlier gloom and doom about the cost of potential hurricane damage in coastal areas was far too rosy.

The California company is predicting that hurricanes will occur with much greater frequency and intensity over the next five years, and is telling insurers they need to increase their annual loss estimates by 25 percent to 30 percent in New England and the mid-Atlantic states, and 40 percent across the Gulf Coast, Florida, and Southeast.

The changes in Risk Management's computer model are expected to ripple throughout the home insurance industry, as the perceived higher hurricane risk translates into higher costs for insurers and higher premiums for owners of homes near the water........

''There's enough data and science to support the view that hurricane activity will be different from what it has been on a historical basis," said Paul VanderMarck, executive vice president at Risk Management.Hurricane risk data add pressure to insurance costs

.....
Until three years ago, homeowners along the Massachusetts coast paid little attention to hurricane models and reinsurance costs. But that all changed when Risk Management tweaked its computer model and significantly increased the damage estimates from a hurricane striking coastal areas.

The new model convinced reinsurance companies, the firms that insure insurance companies against catastrophic events, that their risk was much greater than they had previously thought. That prompted them to increase their rates dramatically, which forced local insurers to charge customers higher premiums to offset the higher cost of reinsurance.

Some regional insurers, including the Andover Cos., Hingham Mutual Group, Vermont Mutual, and Quincy Mutual Insurance Co., went further, concluding the risk of doing business on the Cape and islands was simply too great. The companies scaled back their business in coastal areas or walked away entirely.



Most hurricane models use historical data to forecast hurricane frequency and intensity, but Risk Management says that approach is no longer sufficient.

.......

Kerry A. Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who served on a four-member panel of specialists consulted by Risk Management, said there are two schools of thought about Atlantic hurricane activity.


One school holds that hurricane activity rises and falls in multidecade cycles, with the Atlantic currently in an active cycle that is expected to last another 10 to 20 years. The other school of thought holds that climate warming is changing hurricane dynamics, and the ups and downs of the past are giving way to a more stable trend line that will increase long-term risks for insurers.

Emanuel says he supports the more pessimistic view. ''If it is correct," he said in an e-mail, ''there is then no reason to expect a decadal time-scale downturn in Atlantic hurricane activity."

AIR Worldwide of Boston, the other major hurricane modeling company, takes a more traditional approach, relying on long-term historical data to predict hurricane losses, and sees no need to alter its approach.

.......


Time may be running out. AccuWeather.com, a Pennsylvania-based commercial weather service, earlier this month said conditions are ripe for a devastating hurricane of the magnitude that struck New England in 1938, leaving 600 dead.

''We're not saying New England is going to get hit this year. What we are saying is that the threat is increasing," said Ken Reeves, director of forecasting operations. ''It's not out of the realm of possibility that there could be Katrina-like damage."

Bruce Mohl can be reached at mohl@globe.com.
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

You are right. I am beginning to sound like two other people. I really need to stop hanging out with you guys -- I may be getting a bad reputation by association. :floor:Back to...whatever the topic was -- Insurance Controversies.

Hey ..... hey... HOLD ON THERE !!!!

I resemble that remark !!!! :nono1:

SJ, I've been waiting to use that "you're a bad boy" smiley on you! :D


Just started reading this thread as insurance is a concern of everyone who owns property in this area. Just when I thought the retaining wall issue was starting to simmer down, now that most of us have expressed our views every which way but loose, I just HAD TO STUMBLE into this thread that kept me up half the night!

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY...

I can't believe ecopal is making the wind insurance thing a gulf front vs. non-gulf front issue... AS WELL !!!!!! This is just too much!

Yea, I know, I guess I'm just extremely hypersensitive to gulf front property owner bashers this time of the year. :blink:

I'm TOTALLY CONVINCED that ecopal ACTUALLY and SIMPLY hates (for lack of any other word that fits) all GF owners (see all the retaining wall thread stuff for the benefit of those who have not been following them). We're ruining the beach with our walls, etc. and now we're causing Citizens premium rates to jump up.

It's MY FAULT, as a gulf front property owner, that everyone else's wind insurance rates are going up, right?

OK let's look at the elemental logic here...
Hmmm.... I'm a gulf front property owner so my property blows down when a cat 4 hits. But there must be some magical curtain that protects the property behind me or the property behind that, etc. Uhhhh, I still can't figure that one. Someone help me here.

Here's what started this thread and reinforces my complete and absolute total disappointment for ecopal...

.....So essentially that surcharge is like a tax imposed on those to live in less hazardous areas of Florida to subsidize those who built in more hazardous areas such as on the beachfront.

I guess "such as" south of 30A or south of the bay would be pushing it in ecopal's view. Much less damage on 30A all the way to Hwy 20 when a cat 4 hits!! :confused: What the . ..?

I truly truly truly hope everyone is seeing ecopal for who he is. ecopal screwed up and revealed his totally twisted sense of logic and reason again. You don't have to understand retaining walls, erosion, turtle habitat, etc., etc., to figure this one out.

SJ, I know you don't need me (or anyone else) to back you up on this one. But this guy is gaining credibility....




AS A MAJOR PAIN in the rear!!!



Oh yea, hey Shelly I'm now also convinced that you and ecopal are cut from the same cloth....
If Citizen's worked like a "real" insurance company they would be cranking rates through the roof for Gulf front homes--or not insuring them at all. The insurance game is all about RISK....your dad IS paying to subsidize those Gulf front properties--we ALL are.
What the hell is the matter with you guys? Don't you know the difference between flood insurance (especially in the velocity zone) and wind insurance? Apparently not. It is FLOOD that can be differentiated between gulf front and non-gulf front properties. WIND is the SAME (gulf front vs non gulf front)!!!! I think Andrew, Ivan, Hugo, and on and on and on and on and on MORE THAN PROVED that.[/QUOTE]


Does ecopal and Shelly really believe the stuff they're writing? I don't and I don't think 99% of the "edcuated" masses here believe it either.


Wait a minute! "GOSH BMBVagrant, you sure are being hard on our pal echopal. What axe do you have to grind with him?"


Just simply read some of the stuff he's posted on the "Seawall", "Geotubes in TX" and the "Seawall Audio/Video" thread. I specifically challenged him on several points. One of his responses was that he could not believe that my posts were tolerated on this website. Basically if he can't win, he'll take his ball home. Please see for yourself. It was painfully evident to me there that he was a gulf-front property owner basher.

Oh here's another winner.....
SJ, called echopal on the bad analogy, and very logically I might add...
Originally Posted by Smiling JOe
Both ecopal and Shelly are suggesting that only Beach Front owners are causing these assessments. Have you not noticed that almost the entire Florida penisula has been hit hard with storms the last two years? Hello, you can pull your heads out of the sand now. With State Farm, Allstate and Nation Wide not isuing new policies for homes located within 2000 ft of the Gulf or 500 ft from the Bay or major bayous, Citizens may be the only choice for homeowners in those areas. Sure, that is beach front relative to lets say Kentucky!, but it is not really beach front, now is it?

Then ecopal responds...
....Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post .

I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said “such as the beach front”.

I suppose it depends on ecopal's meaning of the word "such". IMHO, ecopal, is just, well, "too much" (how's that, Kurt?). I have never seen anyone back pedal as fast as he did after SJ's challenge.

BTW, if SJ's reaction is knee jerk in nature, I guess ecopal would consider my reaction a meltdown. Maybe that's his objective. Are you guys setting me up???? :lolabove:

Then on top of that ecopal also said...
....A home close to the beach is more likely to experience a greater degree of damage. That would increase the likelihood of a home closer to the beach exceeding its 2% deductible and tapping into the Citizens insurance fund. Most of us further back may never meet our 2% deductibles if we were built to the recent codes.

What physics book has ecopal been reading lately? Since SJ obviously missed the meaning of "such as" (in your view), what the heck is your definition of "further back"? One house? Two homes? One block? One mile? Ten miles? Gosh, sounds a lot like a question I asked ecopal about how "much" was much when it came to sand lost last week at BMB that ecopal photographed, posted, stated his negativity and then FAILED to QUALIFY that picture in ANY WAY, even after he was repeatedly challenged. Why in the heck would he think those that are non-gulf front are more significantly immune than gulf-front? Otherwise the wind insurance difference is a complete non-issue within a large area of COASTAL property (not just gulf front).

ecopal is losing total credibility and rapidly. He should stick to turtles and such as his name suggests. They won't challenge him.

I did however see two turtles talking to one another (by my retaining wall BTW) and laughing and pointing at some guy taking pictures up and down the beach.... oh wait a minute.... that was me they were laughing at. :D

This wind insurance thing... just another vain attempt in echopal's repertoire of "ways to bash and discredit" gulf front property owners as well as create division between GF and non-GF neighbors. Does it make him feel good? What the heck is his true motivation? I'll buy anyone dinner (my choice where however :D ) who can convince me they have the true answer, even if you don't own gulf-front :funn: .

I won't even bother asking ecopal directly, as he left me "high and dry" (retaining wall / bluff pun intended) on the other thread by not responding to my very direct questions! :lol:

Enough of this for now.

BTW, I did just check to see if ecopal started this post on April's fool day. If so, then I was just "had"..... nope started on March 30th. Must be his true color.

Sorry SJ, for addressing this post to you. But the more of this thread I read, the "crazier" I got. I hope you can understand. Continue the insurance crusade, at least.

Thanks!

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

You are right. I am beginning to sound like two other people. I really need to stop hanging out with you guys -- I may be getting a bad reputation by association. :floor:Back to...whatever the topic was -- Insurance Controversies.

Oh yea forgot to add...
But ain't it fun to hang out with "us guys"? :D

[Chickpea]

Hey ..... hey... HOLD ON THERE !!!!

I resemble that remark !!!! :nono1:

SJ, I've been waiting to use that "you're a bad boy" smiley on you! :D


Just started reading this thread as insurance is a concern of everyone who owns property in this area. Just when I thought the retaining wall issue was starting to simmer down, now that most of us have expressed our views every which way but loose, I just HAD TO STUMBLE into this thread that kept me up half the night!

PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY...

I can't believe ecopal is making the wind insurance thing a gulf front vs. non-gulf front issue... AS WELL !!!!!! This is just too much!

Yea, I know, I guess I'm just extremely hypersensitive to gulf front property owner bashers this time of the year. :blink:

I'm TOTALLY CONVINCED that ecopal ACTUALLY and SIMPLY hates (for lack of any other word that fits) all GF owners (see all the retaining wall thread stuff for the benefit of those who have not been following them). We're ruining the beach with our walls, etc. and now we're causing Citizens premium rates to jump up.

It's MY FAULT, as a gulf front property owner, that everyone else's wind insurance rates are going up, right?

OK let's look at the elemental logic here...
Hmmm.... I'm a gulf front property owner so my property blows down when a cat 4 hits. But there must be some magical curtain that protects the property behind me or the property behind that, etc. Uhhhh, I still can't figure that one. Someone help me here.

Here's what started this thread and reinforces my complete and absolute total disappointment for ecopal...



I guess "such as" south of 30A or south of the bay would be pushing it in ecopal's view. Much less damage on 30A all the way to Hwy 20 when a cat 4 hits!! :confused: What the . ..?

I truly truly truly hope everyone is seeing ecopal for who he is. ecopal screwed up and revealed his totally twisted sense of logic and reason again. You don't have to understand retaining walls, erosion, turtle habitat, etc., etc., to figure this one out.

SJ, I know you don't need me (or anyone else) to back you up on this one. But this guy is gaining credibility....




AS A MAJOR PAIN in the rear!!!



Oh yea, hey Shelly I'm now also convinced that you and ecopal are cut from the same cloth....

What the hell is the matter with you guys? Don't you know the difference between flood insurance (especially in the velocity zone) and wind insurance? Apparently not. It is FLOOD that can be differentiated between gulf front and non-gulf front properties. WIND is the SAME (gulf front vs non gulf front)!!!! I think Andrew, Ivan, Hugo, and on and on and on and on and on MORE THAN PROVED that.


Does ecopal and Shelly really believe the stuff they're writing? I don't and I don't think 99% of the "edcuated" masses here believe it either.


Wait a minute! "GOSH BMBVagrant, you sure are being hard on our pal echopal. What axe do you have to grind with him?"


Just simply read some of the stuff he's posted on the "Seawall", "Geotubes in TX" and the "Seawall Audio/Video" thread. I specifically challenged him on several points. One of his responses was that he could not believe that my posts were tolerated on this website. Basically if he can't win, he'll take his ball home. Please see for yourself. It was painfully evident to me there that he was a gulf-front property owner basher.

Oh here's another winner.....
SJ, called echopal on the bad analogy, and very logically I might add...


Then ecopal responds...


I suppose it depends on ecopal's meaning of the word "such". IMHO, ecopal, is just, well, "too much" (how's that, Kurt?). I have never seen anyone back pedal as fast as he did after SJ's challenge.

BTW, if SJ's reaction is knee jerk in nature, I guess ecopal would consider my reaction a meltdown. Maybe that's his objective. Are you guys setting me up???? :lolabove:

Then on top of that ecopal also said...


What physics book has ecopal been reading lately? Since SJ obviously missed the meaning of "such as" (in your view), what the heck is your definition of "further back"? One house? Two homes? One block? One mile? Ten miles? Gosh, sounds a lot like a question I asked ecopal about how "much" was much when it came to sand lost last week at BMB that ecopal photographed, posted, stated his negativity and then FAILED to QUALIFY that picture in ANY WAY, even after he was repeatedly challenged. Why in the heck would he think those that are non-gulf front are more significantly immune than gulf-front? Otherwise the wind insurance difference is a complete non-issue within a large area of COASTAL property (not just gulf front).

ecopal is losing total credibility and rapidly. He should stick to turtles and such as his name suggests. They won't challenge him.

I did however see two turtles talking to one another (by my retaining wall BTW) and laughing and pointing at some guy taking pictures up and down the beach.... oh wait a minute.... that was me they were laughing at. :D

This wind insurance thing... just another vain attempt in echopal's repertoire of "ways to bash and discredit" gulf front property owners as well as create division between GF and non-GF neighbors. Does it make him feel good? What the heck is his true motivation? I'll buy anyone dinner (my choice where however :D ) who can convince me they have the true answer, even if you don't own gulf-front :funn: .

I won't even bother asking ecopal directly, as he left me "high and dry" (retaining wall / bluff pun intended) on the other thread by not responding to my very direct questions! :lol:

Enough of this for now.

BTW, I did just check to see if ecopal started this post on April's fool day. If so, then I was just "had"..... nope started on March 30th. Must be his true color.

Sorry SJ, for addressing this post to you. But the more of this thread I read, the "crazier" I got. I hope you can understand. Continue the insurance crusade, at least.

Thanks![/QUOTE]





__________________________________________________ ______________

FROM CHICKPEA:

BMBV - please relax! Some of what you say is actually interesting if one did not have to read dollops of sarcasm on top of dollops of insults on top of dollops of subjective opinions. Deciphering what you really want to say and contribute is becoming harder and harder - make your point please without attacking other posters.

I have read all these threads with a lot of interest and believe that most of us want a healthy debate about the real issues of insurance, beach erosion, retaining walls and their myriad of complications and potential promise, etc... I understand your need and desire to protect your property, can appreciate the research you genuinely seemed to have done but also wish that we could read all pros and cons without having to wade through so much extraneous information.

Ok? Please!

[ecopal]

__________________________________________________ ______________

FROM CHICKPEA:

BMBV - please relax! Some of what you say is actually interesting if one did not have to read dollops of sarcasm on top of dollops of insults on top of dollops of subjective opinions. Deciphering what you really want to say and contribute is becoming harder and harder - make your point please without attacking other posters.

I have read all these threads with a lot of interest and believe that most of us want a healthy debate about the real issues of insurance, beach erosion, retaining walls and their myriad of complications and potential promise, etc... I understand your need and desire to protect your property, can appreciate the research you genuinely seemed to have done but also wish that we could read all pros and cons without having to wade through so much extraneous information.

Ok? Please!


Thank you Chick pea, you have summarized the problem well.

It would be nice to be able to post ideas without being personally attacked and having one's opinions misrepresented and distorted.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

FROM CHICKPEA:

BMBV - please relax! Some of what you say is actually interesting if one did not have to read dollops of sarcasm on top of dollops of insults on top of dollops of subjective opinions. Deciphering what you really want to say and contribute is becoming harder and harder - make your point please without attacking other posters.

I have read all these threads with a lot of interest and believe that most of us want a healthy debate about the real issues of insurance, beach erosion, retaining walls and their myriad of complications and potential promise, etc... I understand your need and desire to protect your property, can appreciate the research you genuinely seemed to have done but also wish that we could read all pros and cons without having to wade through so much extraneous information.

Ok? Please!

OK. I got some sleep last night after the post.

Here's MY propblem. I own a couple of pieces of property here in BMB. It certainly appears that ecopal has expressed his dislike of gulf-front property owners over and over in the retaining wall threads.

Now, as I just happened to read this thread on insurance, I see that ecopal starts this thread while at the same time seemingly blaming gulf-front owners for the reason that everyone's wind insurance is going up.

Is it just me ?????

I don't think so based on at least SJ's reasonable and logical response to ecopal's misguided analysis.


ALL THE FOLLOWING ARE QUOTES FROM ECOPAL ON THIS THREAD:
"So essentially that surcharge is like a tax imposed on those to live in less hazardous areas of Florida to subsidize those who built in more hazardous areas such as on the beachfront."

"Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post ."

"I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said “such as the beach front”. "

"I feel that the assumption that all beach front homes are the most at risk for hurricane wind damage than some of those further inland is faulty. "

"However before I pursue this defense of BF homes I should respond to SJ. "

"My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?"

"You are acting a little bizarre."


I'm asking ecopal... Was the reference to "beachfront" homes just a Freudian slip within a post that should have more appropriately referred to homes located in a coastal region? Lots of difference in my mind (and SJ's as far as I could tell).

My only real beef here is with ecopal and his obvious hatred for ALL gulf-front property owners.

I'll lighten up again.

But I hope you trully understand the idiocracy of ecopal's "beachfront" property reference thing. Doesn't make sense when he posted it... doesn't make sense now.

Sorry to be so DIRECT in my last post, but can you start to see a pattern emerging here (besides my insanity :D )? Ecopal is consistant. I'll give him at least that. :bang:


THE BOTTOM LINE TO THIS INSURANCE THING....
Regardless of what we post here, these boards will not affect the outcome of insurance rates, deficits, etc. It's just that ecopal (and Shelly) saw it as another opportunity to vilafy gulf-front property owners in my opinion.

[Rita]

Criminy!! The attacks get so old BMBV! Irregardless of who one agrees with on whichever point or whatever subject, you only lose credibility with the flaming and attacks. I thought Kurt asked us not to FLAME.. :confused:

We need a new emoticon, Kurt..................
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/gulfwindsway/Dormammu_Flaming.gif

[Cork On the Ocean]

Criminy!! The attacks get so old BMBV! Irregardless of who one agrees with on whichever point or whatever subject, you only lose credibility with the flaming and attacks. I thought Kurt asked us not to FLAME.. :confused:

We need a new emoticon, Kurt..................
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/gulfwindsway/Dormammu_Flaming.gif

I agree Rita, the superfluous attacks and sarcasm serve no purpose to anyone but the poster. It makes the post too cumbersome to even read and psychologically creates a bias against the poster so that their points aren't considered on their merit. Some information without all the distraction would be nice and would better present their thoughts to an open-minded audience.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Criminy!! The attacks get so old BMBV! Irregardless of who one agrees with on whichever point or whatever subject, you only lose credibility with the flaming and attacks. I thought Kurt asked us not to FLAME.. :confused:

We need a new emoticon, Kurt..................
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/gulfwindsway/Dormammu_Flaming.gif

You're right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I agree Rita, the superfluous attacks and sarcasm serve no purpose to anyone but the poster. It makes the post too cumbersome to even read and psychologically creates a bias against the poster so that their points aren't considered on their merit. Some information without all the distraction would be nice and would better present their thoughts to an open-minded audience.

You're also right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

[Rita]

You're right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

Ecopal, or any FLAMING poster, tends to lose some credibility with flaming and attacks.

Ask shelly ... we've called her/him on this before. She/He stops for a while then is back at it..... Sorta like some of us who do "drive-by posting" - (Allifunn's new saying. http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e129/gulfwindsway/woohoo.gif )

[Smiling JOe]

All insurance questions answered with this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wpO5h6xO3Go).

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Thank you Chick pea, you have summarized the problem well.

It would be nice to be able to post ideas without being personally attacked and having one's opinions misrepresented and distorted.

You're probably right as well.

Why do you hide behind a one sentence response to my concerns?

Are you incapable of engaging me on a one to one basis regarding your continual gulf-front bashing escapade that I believe you're on?

Don't let the likes of Chickpea, Rita & Cork fight the battles that you have very deliberately chosen.

OK, I'm a freakin' flamer. Don't try to take the easy way out by hiding because of my very impassioned tone. There's a good reason for it (maybe you know already?). You still haven't defended your posts in any real satisfaction to me or to SJ (I'll reach here regarding SJ based on the thread).

I "detected" it on the retaining wall threads. I absolutely observed it on this thread although you attempted to back pedal once confronted. Smiling JOe observed it, called you on it and then you had the nerve to tell him, "Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post ."

"I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said “such as the beach front”. "

"I feel that the assumption that all beach front homes are the most at risk for hurricane wind damage than some of those further inland is faulty. "

"However before I pursue this defense of BF homes I should respond to SJ. "

"My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?"

"You are acting a little bizarre."


Ecopal, please, can you not do better than that? You said that SJ was having knee jerk reactions and acting tempermental, defensive and bizzare.

What part of that is not flaming SJ during the factual exchange coming from SJ?

Simply put.... You can dish it but you can't take it and neither can your supporters. I didn't see too many people jumping in defending Smiling JOe when you were slamming him. To his credit, and I admit, he controlled himself most admirably. Where was Chickpea, Rita and Corky then?

Do you want to try a civil exchange? I do. Simply put, I'm flamed out and maybe this is what really bothers you. That by my presenting just facts (with a twist of flame :D ), which for the most part I've done, you can't hide behind the aprons of your "supporters".

I'll just simply ask a couple of direct questions here and now that I FULLY expect a reply to. Do you take issues with gulf-front property owners? If not, why on earth would you start this thread with a post like you did.... implying that everyone else has to subsidize other at risk property owners' premiums, "such as beachfront" property owners' wind insurance premiums?

Simple question. No flamming here. BALL's in your court.

BTW, did you ever answer my other questions on the other threads? If you have, I can't find them.

[Cork On the Ocean]

You're also right.

Now, any comments regarding ecopal?

This is not a contest. There's no ball in anyones court. Nobody wins. I have no negative comments about anyone. I am only asking that we all be respectful and keep the threads on topic. What the other one person did or did not do is not the topic.

Those who know do not talk. Those who talk do not know.
Temper your sharpness. Simplify your problems.
Yield and overcome; Bend and be straight;
Wise men set an example to all.
Not putting on a display, They shine forth.
Not justifying themselves, They are distinguished.
Not boasting, They receive recognition.
Not bragging, They never falter.
They do not quarrel, So no one quarrels with them.
Therefore the ancients say, "Yield and overcome."

– Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching

[Cork On the Ocean]

All insurance questions answered with this clip (http://youtube.com/watch?v=wpO5h6xO3Go).

:funn: :floor: :rofl: :funn: :funn:

You're twisted!

[Chickpea]

You're probably right as well.

Why do you hide behind a one sentence response to my concerns?

Are you incapable of engaging me on a one to one basis regarding your continual gulf-front bashing escapade that I believe you're on?

Don't let the likes of Chickpea, Rita & Cork fight the battles that you have very deliberately chosen.

OK, I'm a freakin' flamer. Don't try to take the easy way out by hiding because of my very impassioned tone. There's a good reason for it (maybe you know already?). You still haven't defended your posts in any real satisfaction to me or to SJ (I'll reach here regarding SJ based on the thread).

I "detected" it on the retaining wall threads. I absolutely observed it on this thread although you attempted to back pedal once confronted. Smiling JOe observed it, called you on it and then you had the nerve to tell him, "Joe, it is not like you to have such a knee jerk emotionally charged angry reaction. Maybe you should reread my post ."

"I did not say or even imply that beach front homes are causing the assessments. I said “such as the beach front”. "

"I feel that the assumption that all beach front homes are the most at risk for hurricane wind damage than some of those further inland is faulty. "

"However before I pursue this defense of BF homes I should respond to SJ. "

"My goodness SJ, why are you so temperamental and defensive?"

"You are acting a little bizarre."


Ecopal, please, can you not do better than that? You said that SJ was having knee jerk reactions and acting tempermental, defensive and bizzare.

What part of that is not flaming SJ during the factual exchange coming from SJ?

Simply put.... You can dish it but you can't take it and neither can your supporters. I didn't see too many people jumping in defending Smiling JOe when you were slamming him. To his credit, and I admit, he controlled himself most admirably. Where was Chickpea, Rita and Corky then?

Do you want to try a civil exchange? I do. Simply put, I'm flamed out and maybe this is what really bothers you. That by my presenting just facts (with a twist of flame :D ), which for the most part I've done, you can't hide behind the aprons of your "supporters".

I'll just simply ask a couple of direct questions here and now that I FULLY expect a reply to. Do you take issues with gulf-front property owners? If not, why on earth would you start this thread with a post like you did.... implying that everyone else has to subsidize other at risk property owners' premiums, "such as beachfront" property owners' wind insurance premiums?

Simple question. No flamming here. BALL's in your court.

BTW, did you ever answer my other questions on the other threads? If you have, I can't find them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[COLOR=SeaGreen]BMBV,
We are all here and still interested in the issues at hand but not remotely engaged by your attacks on Ecopal. I have read all the threads, some posts more carefully than others (and in the spirit of total honesty will tell you that I do not know who Ecopal is) and I do not reach the same conclusions you do regarding your stance that Ecopal dislikes or resents gulf front property owners. I read his posts, like I did yours originally with genuine curiosity and interest in the topic at hand and read no personal vendetta. I do not speak for Rita or Cork as I od not know them either but I do appreciate their frustration. And I would venture to say that it is not that we are "supporters" of any camp, but that we are tired of reading rambling posts that veer way off topic.

As SJ stated, please PM each other with your pointed questions.

As I previously said, I can appreciate the position you are in and you were in the unique advantage(?)/disadvantage (?) of being a beach front owner who had to grapple with issues most of us did not have to and it does seem that you followed guidelines and protocol afforded you by DEP and resorted to a seawall as a last resort. However, that does not mean that our concerns for our collective beaches are not justified. I spent over a half hour at work yesterday debating with others the insurance quandry as well as whether renourishment even works or whether we should just leave nature alone. Counterintuitive perhaps but those in that camp can make as compelling an argument as those who fervently wish to lessen the possible continued erosion of our dunes. All in all a healthy debate that I hope we will not be tested on this season or any in the immediate future.

Thank you.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
BMBV,
.....I spent over a half hour at work yesterday debating with others the insurance quandry as well as whether renourishment even works or whether we should just leave nature alone. Counterintuitive perhaps but those in that camp can make as compelling an argument as those who fervently wish to lessen the possible continued erosion of our dunes. All in all a healthy debate that I hope we will not be tested on this season or any in the immediate future.

Thank you.


Dear Chickpea,

A very genuine post and very thoughtful post... ALL points well taken. A sincere thank you, as I know you have put significant thought into it, discussed it here and with others and actually taken significant time to clearly share your views.

Also as you have shared with us based on your experiences at work, there ARE 2 sides to every issue.

Yes, I admit that I have issues with ecopal. I'm not shy about showing it as you can see. If you are a beachfront property owner it probably is very apparent. If you're not, I can see where you may not have the same perspective (we) do when reading some of these posts from ecopal. That part is understood. I'm here to speak up (at least for myself).

Again, I am sensitive when anyone makes direct reference to all beachfront owners for all the beach related problems and now for implying that everyone else's wind insurance rates to go up.

Again, ecopal TRIED to qualify his statement, AFTER Smiling JOe challenged him.

Ecopal used the wrong words by saying "such as beachfront" when he knows he should have said "such as coastal properties" when it comes to properties at risk for wind damage. Again, a BIG BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.

I used the words "freudian slip" in a question to ecopal as I feel they are apropos in the case of the first post of this thread by ecopal:
Talking about Citizens Insurance increasing wind insurance premiums increasing..."So essentially that surcharge is like a tax imposed on those to live in less hazardous areas of Florida to subsidize those who built in more hazardous areas such as on the beachfront."

As Smiling JOe implied, what is really less hazardous as it comes to wind risks? There were several hurricanes that caused wind damage well inland AS WELL as on the beachfront, pure and simple. Once more, we're talking wind, not flood (two seperate insurance policies).

It's just that I see an extreme "stretched" referral to "such as on the beachfront" laced with agenda all over it.

I'm beating a dead horse at this point. Either you understand and agree with my point or you don't.

If it was just this thread I probably would just ignore it and let it go.

Chickpea, you deserve words of praise for your thoughtful reply.

Thank you.
BMBV

[TooFarTampa]

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Did anyone else hear that one of the bills before the Fla. legislature would allow insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do. I'd like to write my local representatives but want to have a well-worded letter.

The only thing I can think of is that second homeowners are less likely to be there to board up their properties. Otherwise it reeks of discrimination.

Can anyone tell me why it is so hard to just consider a home's location, construction style and size and come up with a fair rate based on those factors alone? Why does it have to be so difficult? That's what insurance people are supposed to do -- measure risk. I don't get it.

[yippie]

I have not heard that, but it is an interesting thing to look into.

Typically in the past, second homes were less expensive to insure. I ask my agent about that and he said less valuables are in second homes than in primary residences. THAT made sense to me.

But, nothing the insurance companies do anymore holds much logic.

[SHELLY]

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Did anyone else hear that one of the bills before the Fla. legislature would allow insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do.

That's a proposal by Citizen's--Florida State's insurer of last resort.

Since the state is tapping ALL Florida homeowers (regardless of insurance company) to pay an additional 6% (and another 10% later on) to pull this dog out of the ditch AND they are proposing to divert some of our state's revenue (funds that should go to roads and schools) for good measure--they don't want to give the impression that we're substidizing the costs of someone's (especially out-of-staters) investment properties.

[Cork On the Ocean]

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

Did anyone else hear that one of the bills before the Fla. legislature would allow insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do. I'd like to write my local representatives but want to have a well-worded letter.

The only thing I can think of is that second homeowners are less likely to be there to board up their properties. Otherwise it reeks of discrimination.

Can anyone tell me why it is so hard to just consider a home's location, construction style and size and come up with a fair rate based on those factors alone? Why does it have to be so difficult? That's what insurance people are supposed to do -- measure risk. I don't get it.

I think I got something on it. Let me check the mountain of emails in my box and see if I can find it. Glad to be on topic again.

[SlowMovin]

...insurers to charge second homeowners (or non homesteaded properties) 25 percent more on their policies? I've been racking my brain trying to figure out why this would be a fair thing to do....it reeks of discrimination.
It is. But it's a politically popular form of discrimination.

People who own second homes in Florida are perceived by the general public as being "rich". It is considered by many to be only fair for the "rich" to not just pay more but to actually pay higher rates for things like insurance and taxes in order to subsidize everyone else.

And please don't bother to jump on and post about how owning a second home does not make you rich. I already know that. I'm not the one you need to convince.

[SHELLY]

It is. But it's a politically popular form of discrimination.

People who own second homes in Florida are perceived by the general public as being "rich". It is considered by many to be only fair for the "rich" to not just pay more but to actually pay higher rates for things like insurance and taxes in order to subsidize everyone else.

And please don't bother to jump on and post about how owning a second home does not make you rich. I already know that. I'm not the one you need to convince.

"Rich" as in the eyes of a person living in a FEMA trailer?

[TooFarTampa]

That's a proposal by Citizen's--Florida State's insurer of last resort.

Since the state is tapping ALL Florida homeowers (regardless of insurance company) to pay an additional 6% (and another 10% later on) to pull this dog out of the ditch AND they are proposing to divert some of our state's revenue (funds that should go to roads and schools) for good measure--they don't want to give the impression that we're substidizing the costs of someone's (especially out-of-staters) investment properties.

Shelly, Citizens calls itself the insurer of last resort, but as we all know for many inland and coastal properties it is the ONLY available insurer. It is no longer an accurate moniker by any means.

Jeb Bush has proposed a one-time Citizens bailout so homeowners won't have to pay next year's 10 percent surcharge. Read that yesterday in the St. Pete Times. He will only do that on the condition that the laws change to make coverage and rates more fair and to bring in more insurers to balance things out. It makes sense to me. I would MUCH rather see a Citizens bailout than some other tax break or the silly sales tax holiday again. It just makes more fiscal sense. Reset the darn thing and make it work from here on out.

[TooFarTampa]

I have not heard that, but it is an interesting thing to look into.

Typically in the past, second homes were less expensive to insure. I ask my agent about that and he said less valuables are in second homes than in primary residences. THAT made sense to me.

But, nothing the insurance companies do anymore holds much logic.

That is an interesting point Yippie. Our primary residence and our beach investment property would cost approximately the same to rebuild, if you take market factors into consideration. But I guarantee you the stuff inside our primary home is worth 10 times that of what is in the rental house.

[SlowMovin]

"Rich" as in the eyes of a person living in a FEMA trailer?
I'm not following you. What exactly is your question?

[TooFarTampa]

"Rich" as in the eyes of a person living in a FEMA trailer?

There is no doubt it's all relative. That's why the only fair way to do things is ... well, structure the rates fairly. As I've said, that's what actuaries are for. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how you slice it.

[SHELLY]

I'm not following you. What exactly is your question?

It's rhetorical.

[SHELLY]

Jeb Bush has proposed a one-time Citizens bailout so homeowners won't have to pay next year's 10 percent surcharge. Read that yesterday in the St. Pete Times. He will only do that on the condition that the laws change to make coverage and rates more fair and to bring in more insurers to balance things out. It makes sense to me. I would MUCH rather see a Citizens bailout than some other tax break or the silly sales tax holiday again. It just makes more fiscal sense. Reset the darn thing and make it work from here on out.

I agree on your view of the "sales tax holiday." And if only given the choice between two I would get more benefit from not taking another 10% hit on my homeowners.

The horserace is on for Citizens to keep upping their premiums so they are always the "highest cost carrier in the state" now that all their "spin-off business" are asking for rate increases:
Four Home Insurers Requesting Rate Increases (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4773)

[SHELLY]

This "insurance" crap keeps getting deeper and deeper. Now they're considering "dinging" our life, health and auto policies! Hurry up baby boomers...get your butts and wallets down here and help us pay for this mess!

"Floridians face 10 years of payments to replenish insurance catastrophe fund
By Kathy Bushouse
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Posted April 6 2006


TALLAHASSEE · Two years of catastrophic hurricane seasons have drained the state's insurance industry, and now the reserve fund that backs up the insurers is $1.55 billion in the hole.

That means virtually all Floridians could pay for as long as 10 years to cover the fund's shortfall.

This is the first time the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, created in the wake of 1992's Hurricane Andrew, has run out of cash. And the state now is expected to take the unprecedented step of selling special bonds to raise money for home insurers to pay 2005 hurricane property damage claims.

People likely will pay an extra charge on their home, health, life and automobile policies to pay off the bond issue.

How much people would have to pay is unclear. The estimate is an annual charge of no more than 1 percent, or about $10 per $1,000 of the premium, on each of their insurance policies, said Jack Nicholson, the catastrophe fund's senior manager. Only medical malpractice and worker compensation policyholders would be exempt."

[ecopal]

The following is an interesting article about how those that choose to live in high risk flood prone areas are being subsidized by taxpayers.

It also presents ideas for correcting that problem.

Rethinking Flood Insurance
Washington Post
Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A22

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001509.html

the following are excerpts:

".... The theory of the program is that people who choose to live in areas prone to flooding should pay for that risk by buying insurance; they should not expect taxpayers around the country to rescue them from their own recklessness. ......

In a vain attempt to persuade homeowners to buy coverage, the current system is subsidized; this allows people to build houses in exposed locations and then collect a federal check when the inevitable occurs, sometimes repeatedly.

By pricing flood insurance accurately, the government would create price signals that would drive housing development to higher, drier land.

Those who remain determined to live below sea level or
on the beach -- or developers who put up low-income rental units in these places -- would pay the full cost of their preference...

Compulsory, fully priced insurance would in theory achieve the best of all worlds: It would ensure flood victims of compensation, it would protect taxpayers and it would deter risky construction......"

[TooFarTampa]

Question: What parts of 30-A are actually in a flood zone? Our house in Seacrest Beach is 30 feet high and certainly isn't. Our lot in Seagrove is just under 30 feet elevation and certainly isn't. I'm not sure that article is entirely relevant to the situation of most property owners in SoWal, because it seems like so few are required to carry flood insurance. Parts of Grayton? Gulf front owners?

We carry it on our house in Seacrest -- just in case -- and it is a paltry $317 a year. Our wind insurance is 10x that. I'm not sure you can argue that our flood insurance is artificially low because only a direct hit by a catastrophic storm is likely to flood our home. Of course we are 150 yards from the water. I imagine it is different for those on the dunes or one or two lots in.

[beachmouse]

Walton County has surge maps online here:

http://www.co.walton.fl.us/default.asp?ID=102

It takes some playing around to figure out the Mapping Application but in theory, all the information is there.

[ecopal]

Question: What parts of 30-A are actually in a flood zone? Our house in Seacrest Beach is 30 feet high and certainly isn't. Our lot in Seagrove is just under 30 feet elevation and certainly isn't. I'm not sure that article is entirely relevant to the situation of most property owners in SoWal, because it seems like so few are required to carry flood insurance. Parts of Grayton? Gulf front owners?

We carry it on our house in Seacrest -- just in case -- and it is a paltry $317 a year. Our wind insurance is 10x that. I'm not sure you can argue that our flood insurance is artificially low because only a direct hit by a catastrophic storm is likely to flood our home. Of course we are 150 yards from the water. I imagine it is different for those on the dunes or one or two lots in.

I agree the need for flood insurance may not be relevant to many property owners on 30A because the 30A area offers one of the highest coastal elevation spots in Florida and the Gulf and Atlantic coast. We are so fortunate.

However, this article is relevant to all of us for a number of reasons:

1. This article applies to everyone who pays taxes because it is saying that taxpayers are subsidizing property owners who chose to live in high risk flood areas. According to this article even if you don’t buy flood insurance you are still subsidizing owners who live in flood prone areas.

2. Many areas in Dune Allen and some areas near the coastal lakes, and most Gulf front properties are at a high risk for flooding. Even some homes at 30 to 40 feet of elevation on the beach are obviously at risk as we saw from Dennis. Massive seawalls have been installed to save and protect dwellings in some high elevation locations such as Seagrove Beach, Seacrest, and Blue Mountain Beach.

3. For you and I this article could be very relevant because our Flood insurance maybe artificially high to help keep the insurance rates of properties in the high risk zones artificially low.

We were also not required to take out flood insurance but we did this year. I agree it isn’t cheap but it seems like a bargain relative to the expensive windstorm insurance.

We hope it was a waste of money ( $317) because if a storm surge hits us (30 feet up about a 1/4 mile back) there maybe little remaining in areas such as Dune Allen, and the vicinities of Eastern Lake and Western Lake and Grayton Beach not to mention Miramar beach to Destin and Panama City Beach.

It would be interesting to know what beach front owners pay for flood insurance especially in areas with the same elevation as ours. I will ask around.

To view flood zones go to this website. It is very interesting.

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&langId=-1

[TooFarTampa]

1. This article applies to everyone who pays taxes because it is saying that taxpayers are subsidizing property owners who chose to live in high risk flood areas. According to this article even if you don’t buy flood insurance you are still subsidizing owners who live in flood prone areas.

Gotcha. I also think you should be able to take out more than $250,000 worth of flood insurance (the federal limit). That may be counterintuitive to your argument, but at the same time if our home were to be knocked over by storm surge $250K would not cut it, and I'm not sure the wind insurance would pay us anything for what is essentially a huge flood. When they set the 250K limit it was a different time, and that amount should be adjusted upward, and while they are at it they should make the rates fair.

It would be interesting to know what beach front owners pay for flood insurance especially in areas with the same elevation as ours. I will ask around.

Maybe Donna will chime in and tell us what her flood coverage costs. I know she had a flood claim after Ivan. She does not have the same elevation but it would be interesting to know just the same.

[yippie]

I find it interesting that the Coastal Barrier Act of 1983 has not been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/coasbar.html

Basically, this act prohibited people in the barrier zones, (which most of this area is included), ability to purchase flood insurance, of any kind. Even federal funded insurance. This was a ploy created in 1983 by the Federal government to try to harbor development on barrier islands and reduce the risk of exposure.

That was a HUGE deal when I bought my property. Insurance companies could NOT sell me floor insurance. Fortunately, at the time, my home was not located in a flood zone.

Several insurance companies sold flood insurance to people anyway, but it would have never paid any claim had one been filed.

One poster cited the Washington paper with suggestions on what would stop development or rather require developers and purchasers to be at a larger risk.

The Coastal Barrier Zone is now pretty much ignored by developers, however, I still cannot purchase flood insurance on my home.

Confusing? Yes.