On Property Insurance Claim Tips Blog

So let me see if I have this right. Of course, I have this right! Déjà vu all over again. Within House Bill 305 there is language that not only treads on but stomps on the rights of two business entities which by the way are both licensed and pay fees to two branches of the Florida state government in order to conduct legal and necessary business. Why else would they be issued a license and required to mail fees to Tallahassee if they were not legal and necessary?

Hurricane Sally has exposed what I consider some very questionable underwriting tactics that recently have been written into some property insurance policies. A few examples are, limiting emergency service to a fixed cost or not to exceed a set amount which exposes the policyholder to higher out of pocket expenses. As an example, emergency services for mitigation efforts were not limited in Coverage A (your building limit of liability) in prior policy periods. Now we are seeing examples where only a small percent of Coverage A is being made available for emergency services.

The Tampa Bay Times published an article in their editorial page this past week titled, “Stop Giving Hurricane Victims the Run Around” which in my humble opinion is well worth the time to read. For the most part I could not agree more with this commentary as we have seen this “run around” for years.  Clearly history has shown us that when mass catastrophic events occur, one’s expectations are that significant confusion and chaos in the early weeks, especially when first responders are mobilizing to respond to life, health, and safety issues will be the rule.

Make no mistake about it, the assignment of benefits controversy as evidenced by its reported abuse in the property insurance arena in the last decade has to have been one of the top scams I have witnessed in my 46-year career. And to top it off, it was all legal, albeit I would guess at times a bitter pill to swallow for some of those engaged in the activity, but what the heck, it was clearly profitable.

By now folks in Panama City and surrounding areas hit by Hurricane Michael, are finding out how little they are going to get paid for their insurance claim damages. Our office continues to receive calls and emails from policyholders seeking help and answers about their property insurance losses. Predictably, a lot of the frustration from policyholders is about the fact that their claim file was closed without payment due to a subjective opinion by adjusters the insurance companies.

Citizens Insurance is spending tons of policyholder premiums to pay its lawyer friends to fight these claims it clearly should be covering!! Citizens hit with a $12.7 million verdict, acted in monumental bad faith and as a result 500 people who own property in this community continue to suffer from a claim that has languished since 2007. It makes me wonder who is running this company, management or the attorneys?

Several years ago, we started seeing property insurance policies with new very restrictive language that attempted to exclude water losses based on the subjective opinion of some as to when the water loss occurred and caused damages. It was my opinion that this 14 day limitation would be very bad for folks in Florida, as well as snowbirds who own property and only reside here six or so months a year.

Hurricane Irma insurance adjusting practices in the Florida Keys are coming under scrutiny by the Monroe Country State Attorney. This information came to me via a short audio clip from a radio broadcast aired by US 1 Radio News that covers the Florida Keys. In this broadcast, you can hear Monroe County State Attorney, Dennis Swartz sharing his concerns about insurance company adjuster practices in dealing with policyholders who suffered losses from Hurricane Irma.

This year’s “WIND” conference in Orlando, Florida marks the 18-year anniversary that folks from all over the U.S. have gathered to network, learn, and in many instances, conduct settlement talks on active cases to resolve issues involving wind losses and other perils covered by property insurance. Without a doubt, this conference was very successful and well attended with a reported headcount of around a thousand professionals from various disciplines. However, I was somewhat surprised the attendance was not greater given what happened during the 2017 hurricane season. 

In case you missed it, The Wall Street Journal published March 15, 2017 had an article in the editorial section titled “Florida’s Trial Bar Hurricane.” I think most folks who are regular readers of WSJ would agree that the publication is no friend of plaintiff lawyers, so at least we know they are prejudiced to some extent and thus know where they are coming from. But in this case, I see no prejudice but instead good reporting. They make some excellent points, which seemingly are backed up by facts and figures even if they are from the carrier’s side. In my opinion this editorial piece is a good analysis of Florida’s current AOB problem, which is currently being debated in the 2017 Florida Legislative session.