Bring your karma
Join the waitlist today
HUMBLECAT.ORG

What's everyone on about?

Last sync: 1y ago
156
What's going on with insurance companies pulling out of Florida? (self.OutOfTheLoop)
submitted 1d ago by ragingmagpie
What's going on with home insurance companies pulling out of Florida? I saw an article last week about Farmers pulling out, and now AAA. The linked article makes a reference to rising rates and severity of natural disasters, and other articles I've seen make vague references to this being DeSantis' fault. My personal opinion about ol' Ronnie is that he seems genuinely terrible, but if the cause is natural disasters and he has created a billion dollar reinsurance fund, what more could he do to incentivise insurance companies to stay? And aren't natural disasters becoming more severe and more occurring more often literally everywhere? So, why leave Florida (and possibly California, from what the linked article says) in particular? Are the rates of disasters really *that much* higher there than elsewhere? And how can the insurance industry at large continue to exist in general if they're going to pull out of every place that has high rates of disasters when these disasters are becoming more frequent on the whole? Isn't that kind of antithetical to their whole business purpose?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/aaa-insurance-florida-crisis-farmers/
AutoModerator 1 points 1d ago

Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:

1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),

2. attempt to answer the question, and

3. be unbiased

Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:

http://redd.it/b1hct4/

Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.*
vigbiorn 186 points 1d ago
Answer: Specifically to the point about 'are disasters more common in FL than else where', probably. It's a yearly, sometimes multiple times a year, event to have a hurricane touch ground in FL.

Back when I lived in FL, it's about this time of year I would start watching the hurricane trackers to decide how likely I needed to start thinking about evacuation plans. A lot of other Southern states get the category 1-3 but it's usually after it battered Florida for a bit. It's not that uncommon to get a category 5 hurricane in FL. Especially South Florida, which has a large portion of the population and routinely gets hit the hardest by hurricanes.

Tornadoes and twisters are horrible and will definitely level a neighborhood so aren't anything to mess with, but hurricanes, while not immediately as destructive (though not by much...) come with tidal surges and can almost cause destruction over the entire state simultaneously.

It's actually been a really slow period the last few years for hurricanes from my hometown and yet there's still plenty of stories about things like UCFs student housing having flooding up to the second story units. It's a combination of increasing natural disasters and sort of negligence on property owners/government's part, which might be where the blame for DeSantis is coming from. He's probably not exactly on board with the Climate Change predictions given by a lot of researchers, so isn't going to be funding a lot of the infrastructure projects needed to keep up with the changing climate.

Last year's storms were a reminder to a lot of what storms in FL can be like. Add in rising sea levels, and the fact that there's not really anywhere that won't be damaged by the storms when they do come in, insurance companies kind of have to start assessing the idea that every year, the entire state is going to be claiming *at least* flood damage. Not surprised they're leaving.
lexkixass 28 points 1d ago
Yeah, after 2004 when we got three direct hits criss-crossing the state, that's when the exodus of homeowners insurance started. I got really pissed off when State Farm pulled out. My parents had SF and part of the roof came off so there was an inch of standing water inside the house and they had to fight to get the repairs done.
vigbiorn 12 points 1d ago
I remember that year mostly because I was in high school and was wondering how I was going to shower for school if the power didn't get restored by the time school started and camping in our garage since the heat in the house was unbearable.

I don't remember who we had, but our wellhouse roof was caved in and insurance refused to cover that. I wouldn't be surprised if that was when roof issues in the house I eventually had to deal with started. Damages started accruing because no insurance would help.
lexkixass 8 points 1d ago
It sucked.

I was super lucky. My apartment complex was literally next to a blood center, and therefore that part of the grid was priority. I was only out of power for less than twelve hours.

The electric company charges an arm and a leg, but so long as you live within city limits, they are damn quick to get the power back, relative to other parts of the county.

Dog knows what's going to happen with DeathSentance taking over the utility, though.
mmmdonuts107 3 points 19h ago
State Farm is literally the worst, almost 4 years later still fighting a fire claim with them. 0 stars never recommend.
Toloran 5 points 18h ago
I had SF car insurance for 8 years (after separating off my parents plan when I moved out). I then lost my job and couldn't afford my car, so I cancelled my plan and let my car sit for six months. When I went to restart my plan, they wouldn't unless I sent them copies of all my bus passes or a notarized statement that said I wasn't driving while my plan was cancelled.

Fuck that noise.

I went to another company and got an identical plan for less than half the rate and they didn't ask my for shit. Never looked back.
lexkixass 3 points 18h ago
Oof. And ouch.
weaponizedpastry 8 points 1d ago
Add in things like:

Building apartments/houses in drained lakes or right on the beach, knowing full well that hurricanes are going to hit on the regular.
Ok-Magician-3426 -2 points 1d ago
I wonder if we set off a big bomb that ain't a nuke into a hurricane I wonder if it will stop it.
War_Hymn 3 points 1d ago
Even a small hurricane generates more energy in winds than the biggest nuclear bomb ever created by humans. A MOAB has a lethal blast radius of maybe a mile. The eye of a hurricane alone is more than 10 miles in radius. It be like throwing a water balloon at a house fire. Not to mention with how a thermobaric fuel-air bomb like the MOAB works, the fuel disspation could be disrupted by the high winds.
vigbiorn 1 points 1d ago
I think it could theoretically work but it'd have to be a really, really big bomb in order to disrupt the hurricane.
Ok-Magician-3426 -3 points 1d ago
If we set one off at stage 1 it be good enough to use a moab
PaulFThumpkins 1 points 19h ago
Lol did you specify "not a nuke" purely because Trump already suggested nuking hurricanes and had his dumb ass told off for it?
CompetitiveYou2034 45 points 1d ago
Answer: Hurricanes are driven by ocean water temperature.
Hurricanes have "heat engines". 🔥

Common Headline.
Florida ocean temperatures peak to almost 100 degrees F ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-ocean-temperatures-rise-to-the-90s-nearly-hitting-100/

The hotter the oceans surrounding Florida, the more and stronger hurricanes. 🌧️

Side effect: Warm water expands more than cold water, and so ocean levels rise on hot days.
Regular tides plus hot ocean waters means more sunny day floods.

Insurance companies are driven by hard statistics. Given 90+ degree ocean waters, it is very probable there will be more & severe hurricanes. They were quite wise to pull out of Florida.

(Repost starting with word Answer per rules)
philmarcracken 11 points 1d ago
Acuraties don't fuck around. They calculate the raw risk factors and give all insurance companies the cost estimates for every nitty gritty detail. Going as far as the risk taking increases from testosterone effects, and when its the highest presence in blood(in the morning).

Don't want to trust the climate data? Fine, but don't expect any insurance to cover you.
swistak84 227 points 1d ago
Answer: There are three parts to this:

1. Global Warming is worse than you have been told and numbers don't lie. In next few decades a lot of Florida will be under water and rest will be destroyed by regular hurricanes every year. Insurance companies know this because they use science.
2. Florida has socialized insurance that is offering rates that no commercial company can compete with. Somehow of course no conservative complains about this, because they want their properties insured for cheap. And pro-free market conservative governor somehow is not concerned about this government agency interfering with free-market either for some strange reason despite criticizing things like government feeding children in schools (haha, just kidding, it's because he's a sadistic, cruel, hypocritical SoaB, and that's a fact)
3. Florida laws make it very easy to sue insurance companies. Someone mentioned somewhere that Florida accounts for more than a half of all insurance disputes. In entire USA!
RangerDangerfield 28 points 1d ago
Isn’t their socialized/state insurance program at extreme risk of going under due care to the lack of other insurance options in the state? As in, a really bad storm season could bankrupt it.
VibrantPianoNetwork 47 points 1d ago
Yes and no. The state insurance programme will almost certainly be inadequate. However, unlike private companies, public companies are only as insolvent as public authorities decide to let them be. Nearly all public programmes and companies run at a loss; that's part of government's function, to back things that would not be profitable, or would be very high risk, which private companies can't take on.

In this case, the state essentially insures itself, such that as long as Florida as a state continues to run in the black, or at least be able to borrow, it "can't" go bankrupt. The state can in theory just write off any losses and not really have to fear them. Also, the state can appeal for federal aid. (And don't think that a shitball like DeSantis won't, because he absolutely will. He's a shameless hypocrite.)

The somewhat deeper reality, though, is that there are limits to all this. The state's credit is not bottomless, and there are practical limits to what even the feds can and will do. The longer-term reality is that Florida is lost, and no amount of money can save it.
ddddeadhead1979 3 points 21h ago
A government budget can run in the red as long as conservative run the government.
swistak84 22 points 1d ago
>Isn’t their socialized/state insurance program at extreme risk of going under due care to the lack of other insurance options in the state? As in, a really bad storm season could bankrupt it.

Other commenter explained it well, just want to reiterate: As long as Florida decides to it'll pay out insurances. In essence doing socializm for the rich - helping the property owners - often corporations - by taxing the citizens and asking for federal help.

There's solution to this. But well, they would have to go something like this:

1. Create massive infrastructure projects to create storm walls
2. Fund them by taxing the shit out of fossil fuels.
3. Start working on CO2 scrubbing and cooling earth (and it is possible)

But for that you actually need to trust science and not think it's "woke"
angryunderwearmac 10 points 1d ago
realistically none of that is gonna happen until the situation genuinely goes out of control and a state gets written off.

there is no political will for infrastructure coz infra isn't sexy.

gonna get really sexy in a decade tho, the problem will sort itself out for everyone except floridians and other coastal dwellers who can't afford to move - every problem already has solutions as you mentioned just no funding available.
Dornith 3 points 21h ago
>there is no political will for infrastructure coz infra isn't sexy.

What? Infrastructure is literally the one thing that consistently gets bipartisan support.
TacticalKangaroo 45 points 1d ago
Be careful with the “be underwater” rhetoric as it gives a false impression that a lot of climate change deniers then cling to. In the last 120 years global sea levels have gone up about a foot. In the next 30 years they’re expected to rise another foot. This is terrible, as on average that translates to tons of extra acres flooding during more common flooding events.

Miami won’t be underwater in 30 years. It will experience the flooding it experiences now more commonly which will cost billions. But it won’t be underwater. And 30 years from now deniers will use that fact to claim global warming is still a hoax.
swistak84 5 points 20h ago
Miami won't be underwater, but a lot of beachfront properties will be. That foot already made some areas uninhabitable, another foot will add more.
TacticalKangaroo 8 points 19h ago
Again, that’s hyperbole. The average wave height in Miami is about 3’. Places that are inhabitable now will definitely become uninhabitable with 1’ higher general sea level. But they won’t be “underwater” at that point. They’ll just flood more commonly than they do now to the point they’re not economically viable. Any home that will be underwater with 1 more foot of sea level would have waves constantly crashing through the door today and already be uninhabitable.

I’m not arguing against global warming being a problem. I believe it’s one of the biggest problems facing society this century. I’m just pointing out that climate change deniers are already pointing to people in the 70s who similarly said “this or that island will be underwater by the year 2000” as proof that global warming is a hoax. The hyperbole isn’t helping change minds.
swistak84 0 points 18h ago
Like... it's not hyperbole though. If sea levels rise by a foot places which were not flooding before will now be flooding. Places flooding ocasionally will now flood constantly. Places that were flooding constantly will be flooded permanently.

Plus guess what. Some islands indeed had to be abandoned: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/five-pacific-islands-lost-rising-seas-climate-change

That was in 2016. It'll only get worse faster now.

Here's a map for florida. https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/sea-level-rise everything in red will be _literally_ under water in half a century if nothing changes
2localboi 3 points 1d ago
If they are the kind of person who takes the colloquial use of the phrase “be underwater” as a reason to not take climate change seriously because it’s not technically true then they are will fully being ignorant and should therefore be ignored.
Dcoal 2 points 23h ago
"be underwater" as a colloquial term is exclusively used in relation to mortgages or stocks. Maybe other finance contexts as well. To say "be underwater" in terms of climate and weather is not really up for interpretation
2localboi 3 points 23h ago
The kind of people who nitpick words like that in regards to climate change are not going to be moved by accurate or scientific language, that’s the point you went out of your way to miss
Global_Sno_Cone 1 points 1d ago
This is the answer(s).
Astrocragg 33 points 1d ago
Answer: Florida law created a predatory system for lawyers to sue property insurance companies with spurious claims and rack up exorbitant fees. Florida has something like 94% of all property insurance lawsuits in the entire country.

Further, Florida homes are expensive to repair (many have tile roofs, tile flooring, etc), and Florida has to contend with windstorms, excessive rainfall, and sinkholes. This makes doing business as a property insurer basically impossible.
CatAvailable3953 6 points 1d ago
Answer: Money. The insurance industry and big banking and investors like to keep their money. A change in circumstance, like climate change, can make a market like the Florida not profitable for their money. The will invest and do business elsewhere. Why wouldn’t they? It’s still a free country. The wealthy will still be able to afford to build there so the Republicans don’t care.
smthrw2009 1 points 10h ago
Answer: Insurance, sorta by definition, requires two things- 1) an ability to predict (this is what actuaries do) and 2) fund for expected losses (via premiums). In disaster prone states like FL and CA, both have been a challenge for decades.

Due, in part, to climate change and other factors (cost of materials, housing, labor, legal fees, etc), it has become much more difficult to reasonably predict what claims/losses a company could have to pay out. When a company loses control of either, it is quite common to exit the market.

Funding is a challenge in FL as well. Insurance companies are highly regulated, by each state, and (standard market companies) can only charge premiums based on factors that are approved by the state. This limits flexibility to adequately price the product, when claim costs are changing rapidly. FL offers as little pricing flexibility as any state.

Bottom line is, if folks in disaster-prone regions were to have to pay what it actually costs to insure them, most would not live there. Certain geographies would simply be uninsurable. The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) used to do some good, principled work on this issue.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc   •   HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.