home owner insurance cancelled!!!

[Gideon]

Duane Bozarth wrote: While I don't disagree that it is almost certainly more cost-effective in the long run to use the higher deductible to lower annual premiums, the assertion that filing a claim against a policy at a coverage level the company has set premiums for and which are paid is somehow a justification for the company to then cancel is simply excusing a shoddy business practice. Not that some don't do such things, but it shoddy practice.

=======

We can't easily stop the practices of insurance companies. Like many other problems in life, insurance company practices are something that we have to deal with knowing that we are stuck with them. I don't like some of their practices on cancelling policies or increasing rates, but I can't stop them so I have to learn to live with them.

I agree with you, but I should point out that you've made a global statement and I assume that you mean to say that a person shouldn't be cancelled for a pattern of reasonable insurance claims. It is foolish to assume that states can enact legislation which dictates that if you pay your premiums, then an insurance company can never cancel your policy based upon your claims history. However, states should have regulations which stipulate that all cancellation must be justifiable through actuarial data and not justified just by the insurance industry practices aimed more toward intimidating us into not filing legitimate claims.

Gideon

[Duane Bozarth]

See my other responses re: underwiting policies of specific coverages and deductibles at premiums set by the underwriter.

If they underwrite for a given level of protection, it was the underwriter who set the premium was based on their estimates of the risk. The insured is simply expecting the other half of the contract be fulfilled (assuming of course, no deceipt on the part of the insured).

That many insurers then breach that trust ex post facto is a different issue.

[Goedjn]

Yes, they can, and yes, they should. Insurance is supposed to cover you for catastrophic losses, So that a major disaster doesn't wipe out your life. It's not supposed to be a home-maintenance program, and it's not supposed to be a get-out-of-reality free card.

--Goedjn

[Goedjn]

If the insurer pays, then there is no breach of contract, and that's the only reasonable "trust" there is to be broken.

[Duane Bozarth]

It's certainly "reasonable trust" in my opinion that when a contract is entered willingly by both parties and there has been no breach of that contract that there shouldn't be any reason to expect furtherance of the supposedly mutally beneficial relationship to continue.

[Bob G.]

Very true... ! The Insurance company just cutting its losses... HOwever the original poster is going to find out real fast that every company he contacts to buy insurance from will ask him about his claim history ...and they will check it... AND IF they deem to take the risk and actually insure him the Bill will be pretty big....

LOL.... I was suprised that the Company just dropped him...I would have thought that they would have renewed the policy but at a premium rate that was truely outrageous.....

They think you are because you made certain claims. I

I shop for both my Home owners and Car insurance every year ... and both ask my claims history... BUT with all the claims paid out in Florida just for the last years "windy" season I guess Florida is not the land of pleasent living as far as Insurance Companies are concerned.....

Bob G.

[Gideon]

difficult to freakin' Are the keys stuck your

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Good advice. I want to add something else that many people are not aware of, co-insurance.

It is important that you insure your house for the full value. If you think you'll take a risk and insure the house for 50% of the value to save money; you will be considered a co-insurer. Let's say your house is worth $200,000. You figure that it may not be destroyed completely, so you decide to insure it for $100,000 figuring you are covered for most accidents. Wrong.

You incur damage of $80,000 and since you have coverage exceeding that you figure you are covered. The insurance company (legally) figures that you asked them to insure half the value of the property and you are covering the other half. So, you file an $80,000 claim and they pay their half, or only $40,000.

[Ralph Mowery]

Just where do you think the cutoff point is ? Say a $ 200,000 house. YOu have a deductiable of $ 1000 or even $ 5000. What point do you file a claim ? Do it at a 10% loss, 25 % loss, or do you wait tuil it is the full 100% ?

I think if you have a $ 1000 deductable then anythinge much over that should be filed. The insurance company may not like it, but it is their bet against your bet.

[lefty]

Contact the office of your state insurance commissioner and check out your venues of recourse. Some states have guidelines relative to the operations on those ins co's in your state and 'codes' for conduct. give'em a call..

[Vic Dura]

On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 17:22:26 -0400, Goedjn wrote Re Re: home owner insurance cancelled!!!:

No, insurance is supposed to cover you for losses above your deductible. If you buy a low deductible (say $500) then the insurance company will bill you a relatively high premium based on the assumption that you will submit claims for losses over $500. To then drop you when you do so is IMO a breach of an implied covenant. If they do not like small claims (say $1600) over the deductible, then whey are accepting payment on such a policy?

You pay for a high level of coverage and then they get mad when you use it.

Well is legal, so they do it. The solution is to avoid low deductible policies.

[Duane Bozarth]

I disagree on the "implied" in the last statement--the insurer never tells you up front "Oh, btw, if you happen to have reason to file a claim for this policy we won't be renewing it." One assumes when doing business that the offer is mutually beneficial for both parties and that the offeror is under no more duress in making the offer than the acceptor is in accepting.

[Duane Bozarth]

But would you do that if the customer had completely fulfilled the terms and done so in good faith?

I'll grant the individual customer can be a pita--I had clients as a consulting engineer that I did not accept further work from for similar reasons.

I still believe that while I agree the end decision is one made on the bottom line that there's a more devious mode of operation in play w/ the insurance companies than in the way in which you or I would, as individuals, be comfortable w/ as a way of doing business.

Illegal? No, in the most part. I still think often the insurance companies are rewriting the rules to favor them far more than I think conscionable. I still contend that the nub of their problem is that they tend to underestimate potential liability in order to sell coverage and collect premiums in a competitive marketplace and then have to scramble to cover their losses. This, of course, is also a two-edged sword in that we, as consumers, hunt for the cheapest premium we can find. Think, however, of how many ads you've seen on the TV touting one brand over another for both the best in service at cheaper than competitors' prices. They're making their own bed as well.

[G Henslee]

Unless you're one who just loves the sense of false security received from having that local good guy agent/buddy/pal/guy you started with, etc, I find it worthwhile to shop for both home & auto insurance every couple of years because they continually raise their rates onced you're a customer.

[G Henslee]

"Servicing" in the horse and cattle industry that means the same as f*ck.

[G Henslee]

Unfortunately this merry band of theives (insurance industry) have state laws (or the lack thereof) stacked in their favor. Best you can do is shop. Oh, and bottom post. :-)

[Edwin Pawlowski]

He said he was "dropped" but I'm guessing he was not renewed. In that case, the contract has run its course and it not being renewed. No implied covenant in that case.

[Duane Bozarth]

But you could also choose offer to service them at whatever increased rate you need and they could then choose to accept of go elsewhere...why would you not do that unless there were other specific confounding factors unrelated to simply cost?

[Duane Bozarth]

miamicuse wrote: ....

My anecdotal evidence is that State Farm is one of the worst in this regards...

If you can qualify under your local conditions, I'd suggest at least looking into Farm Bureau.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Exactly. They had a one year term of mutual benefit. Term expired and insurer decided it was not in his best interest to continue a relationship. Happens in business every day. We've told a few customers we don't want to sell to them any more. If the business it not profitable, we just won't do it.