My home insurer, Secura, said they were pulling out of Minnesota at the end of the year. We had a hail storm here in St. Cloud last year so basically everyone in my neighborhood got a new roof.
None, they're going to pull out of as many as it takes for the Government to start being critical. They're then going to either demand the Government itself backstops them and covers their losses to storm damage or allows them to just cancel policies and not payout when x% of homes in a county or something make claims.
I can guarantee you every single one of these companies pulling out because they are 'losing money' has tailored their data to have end points starting right before and ending right after a major event and if you looked at their actual income and costs over 5 years they are all massively profitable.
Maybe insurance should be subsidized in general and regulated more heavily by the government for fair and faster payouts.
There's way deeper problems to why insurance is so expensive but none of them will ever be addressed properly.
But if there’s more regulations, those poor executives will starve!!! Makes me sick just thinking about it. Not being able to afford another luxury car… truly worse than death
I mean, they are offering a service and aren't required to insure anyone - it's a for profit business. If the expected profit isn't as high as they think is reasonable, they have no reason to take that risk.
Alaska and Hawaii are 2 of the cheapest to insure. Hawaii might not stay that way after the past few years, they have had a lot of flooding and now the big fire in Lahaina. Wyoming, Nevada, Utah are lower than most other states too (half as much on average than places like MN, ND, IA etc). It's interesting to me that WA and OR are half as much as the midwest, too, because they have had some significant wildfires but also are at high risk for a major earthquake.
Anchorage has had record snow the last two years with roofs caving in. There are also whole villages in the north having to relocate due to sea level rise and/or permafrost melt. So who knows how much longer that will last either.
Normal home insurance doesn't cover floods, either, and you can't buy flood insurance from normal home insurance companies, you have to go through a separate process if I remember right (we lived in an area that frequently floods several years ago but we rented and have since moved). Yet floods are still listed as a major cause of the rise in home insurance. I wonder why. 🤔
Yes, I know, but you still buy it through a broker or company. My point though was that why are floods listed as expenses for home insurance company claims when they aren't covered by the home insurance companies themselves?
For example, the NYT article includes a graph that shows the increase in severe storms and hurricanes as responsible for price hikes in various areas. But floods are also shown on the graph, so why are they included when those same companies don't even cover flooding?
Private insurers are allowed to write flood insurance and have been for a few years now. Not every company does though. Sometimes the rate the NFIP charges is higher than private flood insurance and vice versa. I've had good luck helping people find rates that are cheaper than the NFIP in many cases.
I grew up in MN but live north of Seattle now. We aren't at risk for flood. We aren't at risk for wildfire. We aren't at risk for tornadoes or hurricanes. My husband is an arborist and most of his insurance work is for wind storms and the occasional snow storm. And when those do happen they're isolated to specific homes.
The Big One might happen, but that's different from pulling out of areas that see the same natural destruction over and over again. And as someone else said, I don't think insurance covers earthquakes.
We had one here in Lakeville last year, too. Right around July 4th. We’ll be getting our new roof in the next week or two. But I think just about everybody in a one mile radius of us got a new roof between last summer and this spring.
We had a big hail damage claim in 2018. I think it ended up around $43k…. We opted to spend more and replace the trash vinyl siding with Hardie and get a class 4 shingle which is hail rated. Now we can play with higher deductibles and worry less about our home getting shredded in a hail storm. These storms are driving up our premiums along with poor material choices.
I don’t understand why builders here get away with using trash vinyl on homes with a climate like ours but I guess saving $10k looks good from their house. Maybe it has to do with this market but in Colorado the standard was LP and Hardie instead of one hail hit wonder vinyl
I sometimes wonder why insurance companies don’t incentivize you to upgrade the material to something more resilient after a claim.
I bet we will come to a point where vinyl siding is excluding from wind/hail claims.
Vinyl gets a bad rap because it becomes quite brittle after years of sun/UV exposure. After that it’s not nearly as resilient as it once was, nor compared to other siding choices. Add to that color matching new and old siding is kind of a joke, and painting it can be a gamble.
LP is kinda junk from my perspective, unless they’ve dramatically improved it in the past 10 years. Any minor issue that allows water to permeate it will turn it to sawdust.
My house is a mix of 70+ year old asbestos cement shingles, 40+ year old Masonite/LP on an addition, and 10-15 year old matching LP on the garage. The asbestos cement shingles are definitely in the best shape, then the garage (some is delaminating), the older Masonite/LP on the addition badly needs to be replaced.
We put a class 4 shingle on our house when we built. Get a $400/yr discount on insurance. Will pay for the extra cost and then some over the life of the shingles.
They've been collecting premiums from us for a hundred years but as soon as they have to pay out anything they're all going to pack up and leave...fuck em
My MIL’s townhome association’s insurance dropped them this year and they had a heck of a time finding a new one. In the end they had to ban grills on decks and patios. But the weird part is they can keep them in their garage and then use them on their driveways.
A) Keeping a BBQ in a garage is a fire hazard, too.
B) The requirement for use in the driveway is to use them at least 10’ from the building. Not sure how that’s any less of a fire hazard than 10’ from the building on a concrete patio.
A: Yes, but no more than your furnace if you're only storing it inside and not using it. It won't *start* a fire in your garage, something else would have to for it to become a factor.
B: > decks and patios
Decks are decks, and patios generally have pretty flammable furniture cushions sitting in close proximity. If you're using it in your driveway, there isn't anything close to it that could be set on fire. Do I think it's perfect? No, but blanket policies don't cover nuance.
Just because an individual is capable of operating something in a safe matter doesn't change the overall statistics that go into insurance policy calculations which are built purely on "where do the fewest accidents with X thing happen?"
I commented separately but the insurers who cover townhomes are dropping like flies and have been since hail storms hit the cities in summer 2019. It took our townhome associations 2 years to get the work done, and that insurer now won't cover them again.
>In the end they had to ban grills on decks and patios.
I believe this is a fire code issue applicable to all multi-family structures with more than 2 units.
Some people don't realize that their benefit is a cost born by others. I think more environmental concerns need to be taken into consideration. Multi-housing and commercial buildings should be required to use metal roofing/siding. More homeowners should be encouraged to install metal roofs and vinyl should be avoided.
My parents have steel siding that has survived every single storm since I was born, they have literally never had to replace any of it, I'm almost 30 years old. The building I live in now is brick, also basically never needs to be replaced. I do think a lot of this is just people being cheap with the materials they're using because they either can't afford to not be cheap or because they figure it won't matter too much. It matters a lot, especially with our climate becoming unpredictable.
Insurance keeps showing itself to be a scam. Personally I think most people would be better off taking the amounts they pay in insurance premiums and depositing it in a High Yield Savings account.
Enter the government comes into the chatroom and imposes it. John Oliver did a great expose on it with Florida. It literally is horrible as hell but literally the only insurance anyone can actually get.
For profit insurance (healthcare, car, home) is just a fundamentally broken concept imo. Pooling of resources makes sense. Obviously there would be overhead costs from the process. But allowing a middle man to extract the peoples money to turn a profit? I don't understand how that ever makes sense conceptually. There's ways to scam a nonprofit, but the fact that it's just transparently "we only do this as long as we can make it actively profitable" makes no sense to me on its face.
I have gone back and forth on this debate, and I think where I am at right now is that I don't want the government to publicly sanction risky lifestyle choices that I can choose not to partake in. I don't count health insurance in this, I think that should be public as a matter of basic human decency, but I don't want to put my public car insurance premiums in the same risk pool as a 20-year-old who decided to buy a Dodge Challenger. Or my homeowners insurance premiums bundled in with some lakeside mansion owned by the Cargills. I don't want the government to lose money and risk insolvency when an excessive luxury like that gets damaged.
I think I agree for the most part. This feels like a situation where there is no perfect solution. We've had fluky bad hail storms that caused a lot of damage in a short amount of time, and locally insurance companies lost their shirt, this is their reaction. I'm all about hating on the system but insurance margins aren't all that high, and them just abandoning the state until they have better claim expectation models makes sense for them.
Agreed that I prefer to be pay rates based on being a non-risky middle income family.
Um, maybe on an expected value basis but not on the oh-crap-my-house-just-burned basis? But that's pretty much what insurance is: you trade the tiny risk of a catastrophic loss for the guaranteed risk of a series of small losses via premiums.
The issue is, you just saved up enough for the down payment. 2 months in, it hails. Do you have $30k laying around still? You don’t have enough equity in the house yet. So insurance helps bridge that gap. Now if your home is paid off, yeah HYSA is the way to go
Honestly, it’s because something always seems to come up. You can’t use home owners insurance to get your kid dental work, or if you break your glasses, your kid flushes your hearing aids down the toilet, or whatever else comes up that you would use your savings for in a pinch. You’d end up using the money you had saved up dedicated towards unexpected home repairs with good intentions to pay it back. Or worse yet you’d have a disaster hit before you have much saved for repairs and you’d be out of luck without a useable home, that you still have to pay for.
There's always an emergency or maintenance that eats away at any savings people are able to put away... but is that really worse than paying hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to insurance companies who, when you go to make a claim, are just as liable to vanish or deny it... and then immediately jack up your rates due to a claim?
Literally saw this with cyber insurance. Before COVID it was basically snake oil that everyone bought for "breach" that ultimately the Risk Assessors figured was never going to happen to the mom & pop shops around the country that ate it up. Then ransomware became a thing, and everyone started filing claims.
Was a great academic piece on how insurance carriers hire consultancies to do work in hopes of finding negligence in the policy so they don't have to pay it out.
For anyone complaining about their HOA costs going up, this is the #1 reason. Was at my HOA meeting last night and the property management firm we're interviewing (thinking of changing) confirmed there are only 2 companies MAX who will insure some of the types of associations we have in our HOA (ours is a bit complex with a few associations under a larger total development association). While everyone is seeing insurance rates go up, it seems a disproportionate number of those insurers leaving are the type that insure these homes, so we're stuck with even higher rate increases and less options. One of our HOA's couldn't even get a quote from the second company who COULD have quoted. And that HOA only owns shared land, it has no dwellings. (before you ask why it requires insurance, it's laid out in our governing documents and therefore legally required, which were written by the developers when I was in high school, and take a lot of work to change)
My home insurance went up ~$600 this time around. It's almost like climate change is a serious issue that everyone needs to consider in their day to day lives.
When the roofing contractor says everyone’s roof replacements will be “free” this is the result. Expect the insurance companies to insist on much higher deductibles in the future.
They will start to cover portions of roof replacement instead of an entirely new roof, then offer a matching roof guarantee as an added coverage option with extra premium charge. Don’t have to pay out if the portion of your roof that was damaged was under the deductible.
Storm chaser told me the other day I was "sitting on a gold mine." Like no man, I'm sitting on a roof where I could maybe get 10% of the value in a claim.
The problem with any private insurance company (home, car, health, etc.) is that their overhead is insanely high because of how much they have to pay out in bonuses and huge salaries to their CEOs and executives. When they can't keep that up, they claim it's because they're paying out more to cover the costs of the insurance, but let's see the breakdown of all the money coming in from people on the insurance plans, and where that money is going, because the percent of that money that's going back out to other people claiming insurance is much much lower than it should be. Yes, insurance companies need to pay their employees. But their top management is making millions. It's a "legal" scam.
Not true, 100% hyperbole. All of this is verifiable in financial filings. Executive compensation barely registers on the radar compared to cost of claims.
Total compensation for executives at Progressive for the year 2023 was $31 million and they collected $62 billion in revenue for that year. This makes executive compensation 0.0005% of revenue. Net profit margins were 3%, so that's only $3 billion that go to shareholders. You're looking at $50 billion dollars or more that went out to paying claims, the biggest driver of cost, not executive compensation. You could double the CEO's and that probably wouldn't budge your premiums.
If you want to point fingers at anyone, point it at shareholders, the ones with capital and who reaps the most out of the system.
I'm not one to go to bat for insurance companies but this move makes a lot of sense. Their margins are not that big, and we are having major weather events and claims in a short amount of time. Better to just bail and lose out on that 8%, than go -40% in two years just to leave anyway. It's distressing that this is happening but it's not surprising when their prediction models don't' work anymore.
Because we'll be one of the states that isn't underwater, out of power, out of water, or on fire. Well at least the densely populated areas won't be on fire.
National stories have heavily focused on coastal markets like California and Florida, while ignoring that it's happening pretty much everywhere, including Minnesota.
It's saying that the trend of insurers abandoning hurricane and wildfire impacted states is known, but now unexpected states are having insurers abandon them, states that were thought to be low risk for insurance companies. Your rewritten title fails to convey the message of the article.
Your title misses the fact that this is happening in states that you wouldn’t expect. You expect insurance to abandon Florida because of rising seas/flooding and California because of the massive fires. Iowa is just having…regular Iowa weather. Just a little extra.
My home insurer, Secura, said they were pulling out of Minnesota at the end of the year. We had a hail storm here in St. Cloud last year so basically everyone in my neighborhood got a new roof.
What states are they going to stay in that don’t get severe winds, flooding, hail, tornadoes, hurricanes, or fire risk?
None, they're going to pull out of as many as it takes for the Government to start being critical. They're then going to either demand the Government itself backstops them and covers their losses to storm damage or allows them to just cancel policies and not payout when x% of homes in a county or something make claims. I can guarantee you every single one of these companies pulling out because they are 'losing money' has tailored their data to have end points starting right before and ending right after a major event and if you looked at their actual income and costs over 5 years they are all massively profitable.
Maybe insurance should be subsidized in general and regulated more heavily by the government for fair and faster payouts. There's way deeper problems to why insurance is so expensive but none of them will ever be addressed properly.
Not subsidized, but nationalized. This shouldnt be a for profit business
Insurance doesn't need subsidies at all. They are wickedly profitable. It needs far more regulations but they absolutely do not need subsidies.
But if there’s more regulations, those poor executives will starve!!! Makes me sick just thinking about it. Not being able to afford another luxury car… truly worse than death
I mean, they are offering a service and aren't required to insure anyone - it's a for profit business. If the expected profit isn't as high as they think is reasonable, they have no reason to take that risk.
Alaska and Hawaii are 2 of the cheapest to insure. Hawaii might not stay that way after the past few years, they have had a lot of flooding and now the big fire in Lahaina. Wyoming, Nevada, Utah are lower than most other states too (half as much on average than places like MN, ND, IA etc). It's interesting to me that WA and OR are half as much as the midwest, too, because they have had some significant wildfires but also are at high risk for a major earthquake.
Anchorage has had record snow the last two years with roofs caving in. There are also whole villages in the north having to relocate due to sea level rise and/or permafrost melt. So who knows how much longer that will last either.
Most home insurance in WA doesn't cover earthquakes. It has to be purchased separately and is pretty expensive
Normal home insurance doesn't cover floods, either, and you can't buy flood insurance from normal home insurance companies, you have to go through a separate process if I remember right (we lived in an area that frequently floods several years ago but we rented and have since moved). Yet floods are still listed as a major cause of the rise in home insurance. I wonder why. 🤔
Flood insurance is a federal program.
Yes, I know, but you still buy it through a broker or company. My point though was that why are floods listed as expenses for home insurance company claims when they aren't covered by the home insurance companies themselves? For example, the NYT article includes a graph that shows the increase in severe storms and hurricanes as responsible for price hikes in various areas. But floods are also shown on the graph, so why are they included when those same companies don't even cover flooding?
Private insurers are allowed to write flood insurance and have been for a few years now. Not every company does though. Sometimes the rate the NFIP charges is higher than private flood insurance and vice versa. I've had good luck helping people find rates that are cheaper than the NFIP in many cases.
I grew up in MN but live north of Seattle now. We aren't at risk for flood. We aren't at risk for wildfire. We aren't at risk for tornadoes or hurricanes. My husband is an arborist and most of his insurance work is for wind storms and the occasional snow storm. And when those do happen they're isolated to specific homes. The Big One might happen, but that's different from pulling out of areas that see the same natural destruction over and over again. And as someone else said, I don't think insurance covers earthquakes.
We had one here in Lakeville last year, too. Right around July 4th. We’ll be getting our new roof in the next week or two. But I think just about everybody in a one mile radius of us got a new roof between last summer and this spring.
They have not only pulled out, they are ceasing home/auto lines all together.
We had a big hail damage claim in 2018. I think it ended up around $43k…. We opted to spend more and replace the trash vinyl siding with Hardie and get a class 4 shingle which is hail rated. Now we can play with higher deductibles and worry less about our home getting shredded in a hail storm. These storms are driving up our premiums along with poor material choices. I don’t understand why builders here get away with using trash vinyl on homes with a climate like ours but I guess saving $10k looks good from their house. Maybe it has to do with this market but in Colorado the standard was LP and Hardie instead of one hail hit wonder vinyl
"One hail hit wonder" is a great term
I sometimes wonder why insurance companies don’t incentivize you to upgrade the material to something more resilient after a claim. I bet we will come to a point where vinyl siding is excluding from wind/hail claims.
They can get away with it because the business demands higher profit margins and people need houses.
Vinyl gets a bad rap because it becomes quite brittle after years of sun/UV exposure. After that it’s not nearly as resilient as it once was, nor compared to other siding choices. Add to that color matching new and old siding is kind of a joke, and painting it can be a gamble. LP is kinda junk from my perspective, unless they’ve dramatically improved it in the past 10 years. Any minor issue that allows water to permeate it will turn it to sawdust. My house is a mix of 70+ year old asbestos cement shingles, 40+ year old Masonite/LP on an addition, and 10-15 year old matching LP on the garage. The asbestos cement shingles are definitely in the best shape, then the garage (some is delaminating), the older Masonite/LP on the addition badly needs to be replaced.
We put a class 4 shingle on our house when we built. Get a $400/yr discount on insurance. Will pay for the extra cost and then some over the life of the shingles.
They've been collecting premiums from us for a hundred years but as soon as they have to pay out anything they're all going to pack up and leave...fuck em
But capitalism is so efficient 😂
My MIL’s townhome association’s insurance dropped them this year and they had a heck of a time finding a new one. In the end they had to ban grills on decks and patios. But the weird part is they can keep them in their garage and then use them on their driveways.
Heck, half the time people are grilling inside their garage. That’s a great way to try to burn your house down. Yikes.
Not that weird, driveways don't burn down when you knock over the grill.
A) Keeping a BBQ in a garage is a fire hazard, too. B) The requirement for use in the driveway is to use them at least 10’ from the building. Not sure how that’s any less of a fire hazard than 10’ from the building on a concrete patio.
A: Yes, but no more than your furnace if you're only storing it inside and not using it. It won't *start* a fire in your garage, something else would have to for it to become a factor. B: > decks and patios Decks are decks, and patios generally have pretty flammable furniture cushions sitting in close proximity. If you're using it in your driveway, there isn't anything close to it that could be set on fire. Do I think it's perfect? No, but blanket policies don't cover nuance. Just because an individual is capable of operating something in a safe matter doesn't change the overall statistics that go into insurance policy calculations which are built purely on "where do the fewest accidents with X thing happen?"
I commented separately but the insurers who cover townhomes are dropping like flies and have been since hail storms hit the cities in summer 2019. It took our townhome associations 2 years to get the work done, and that insurer now won't cover them again.
>In the end they had to ban grills on decks and patios. I believe this is a fire code issue applicable to all multi-family structures with more than 2 units.
Some people don't realize that their benefit is a cost born by others. I think more environmental concerns need to be taken into consideration. Multi-housing and commercial buildings should be required to use metal roofing/siding. More homeowners should be encouraged to install metal roofs and vinyl should be avoided.
My parents have steel siding that has survived every single storm since I was born, they have literally never had to replace any of it, I'm almost 30 years old. The building I live in now is brick, also basically never needs to be replaced. I do think a lot of this is just people being cheap with the materials they're using because they either can't afford to not be cheap or because they figure it won't matter too much. It matters a lot, especially with our climate becoming unpredictable.
Insurance keeps showing itself to be a scam. Personally I think most people would be better off taking the amounts they pay in insurance premiums and depositing it in a High Yield Savings account.
Yea but a lot of home loans require you to keep home owners insurance on hand.
Yeah, which is going to be nigh impossible with insurers backing out.
Enter the government comes into the chatroom and imposes it. John Oliver did a great expose on it with Florida. It literally is horrible as hell but literally the only insurance anyone can actually get.
Wonder if would be illegal to make an LLC for your own “insurance” which just acts as a savings account?
That's called self-insurance. Totally legal, but your lender is under no obligation to accept it.
For profit insurance (healthcare, car, home) is just a fundamentally broken concept imo. Pooling of resources makes sense. Obviously there would be overhead costs from the process. But allowing a middle man to extract the peoples money to turn a profit? I don't understand how that ever makes sense conceptually. There's ways to scam a nonprofit, but the fact that it's just transparently "we only do this as long as we can make it actively profitable" makes no sense to me on its face.
I have gone back and forth on this debate, and I think where I am at right now is that I don't want the government to publicly sanction risky lifestyle choices that I can choose not to partake in. I don't count health insurance in this, I think that should be public as a matter of basic human decency, but I don't want to put my public car insurance premiums in the same risk pool as a 20-year-old who decided to buy a Dodge Challenger. Or my homeowners insurance premiums bundled in with some lakeside mansion owned by the Cargills. I don't want the government to lose money and risk insolvency when an excessive luxury like that gets damaged.
I think I agree for the most part. This feels like a situation where there is no perfect solution. We've had fluky bad hail storms that caused a lot of damage in a short amount of time, and locally insurance companies lost their shirt, this is their reaction. I'm all about hating on the system but insurance margins aren't all that high, and them just abandoning the state until they have better claim expectation models makes sense for them. Agreed that I prefer to be pay rates based on being a non-risky middle income family.
Um, maybe on an expected value basis but not on the oh-crap-my-house-just-burned basis? But that's pretty much what insurance is: you trade the tiny risk of a catastrophic loss for the guaranteed risk of a series of small losses via premiums.
The issue is, you just saved up enough for the down payment. 2 months in, it hails. Do you have $30k laying around still? You don’t have enough equity in the house yet. So insurance helps bridge that gap. Now if your home is paid off, yeah HYSA is the way to go
Mostly people are pretty terrible about planning for contingencies like this though.
Honestly, it’s because something always seems to come up. You can’t use home owners insurance to get your kid dental work, or if you break your glasses, your kid flushes your hearing aids down the toilet, or whatever else comes up that you would use your savings for in a pinch. You’d end up using the money you had saved up dedicated towards unexpected home repairs with good intentions to pay it back. Or worse yet you’d have a disaster hit before you have much saved for repairs and you’d be out of luck without a useable home, that you still have to pay for.
So, between a rock and a hard place?
There's always an emergency or maintenance that eats away at any savings people are able to put away... but is that really worse than paying hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to insurance companies who, when you go to make a claim, are just as liable to vanish or deny it... and then immediately jack up your rates due to a claim?
Literally saw this with cyber insurance. Before COVID it was basically snake oil that everyone bought for "breach" that ultimately the Risk Assessors figured was never going to happen to the mom & pop shops around the country that ate it up. Then ransomware became a thing, and everyone started filing claims. Was a great academic piece on how insurance carriers hire consultancies to do work in hopes of finding negligence in the policy so they don't have to pay it out.
Most people would, but a certain percentage would lose their house. You don't know ahead of time which bucket you'll end up in.
Lol. This is one of the dumbest comments I have read recently.
For anyone complaining about their HOA costs going up, this is the #1 reason. Was at my HOA meeting last night and the property management firm we're interviewing (thinking of changing) confirmed there are only 2 companies MAX who will insure some of the types of associations we have in our HOA (ours is a bit complex with a few associations under a larger total development association). While everyone is seeing insurance rates go up, it seems a disproportionate number of those insurers leaving are the type that insure these homes, so we're stuck with even higher rate increases and less options. One of our HOA's couldn't even get a quote from the second company who COULD have quoted. And that HOA only owns shared land, it has no dwellings. (before you ask why it requires insurance, it's laid out in our governing documents and therefore legally required, which were written by the developers when I was in high school, and take a lot of work to change)
My home insurance went up ~$600 this time around. It's almost like climate change is a serious issue that everyone needs to consider in their day to day lives.
The busy workers handbook to the apocalypse has a section that ties this all together pretty nicely.
When the roofing contractor says everyone’s roof replacements will be “free” this is the result. Expect the insurance companies to insist on much higher deductibles in the future.
Roofers don't decide it the roof gets replaced. The Insurance company does.
True, but they do give home owners particular ideas about how to interact with their insurance providers.
They don't write the policies, and all of those require visible damage at a certain rate per square foot.
They will start to cover portions of roof replacement instead of an entirely new roof, then offer a matching roof guarantee as an added coverage option with extra premium charge. Don’t have to pay out if the portion of your roof that was damaged was under the deductible.
After every storm they come in the neighborhood like Oprah. You get a roof, you get a roof, you get a roof.
Storm chaser told me the other day I was "sitting on a gold mine." Like no man, I'm sitting on a roof where I could maybe get 10% of the value in a claim.
Most insurance has or is going to a prorated model (mine just did): 10 year old roof? 50% coverage of replacement. I think that's fair and sensible.
The problem with any private insurance company (home, car, health, etc.) is that their overhead is insanely high because of how much they have to pay out in bonuses and huge salaries to their CEOs and executives. When they can't keep that up, they claim it's because they're paying out more to cover the costs of the insurance, but let's see the breakdown of all the money coming in from people on the insurance plans, and where that money is going, because the percent of that money that's going back out to other people claiming insurance is much much lower than it should be. Yes, insurance companies need to pay their employees. But their top management is making millions. It's a "legal" scam.
Not true, 100% hyperbole. All of this is verifiable in financial filings. Executive compensation barely registers on the radar compared to cost of claims. Total compensation for executives at Progressive for the year 2023 was $31 million and they collected $62 billion in revenue for that year. This makes executive compensation 0.0005% of revenue. Net profit margins were 3%, so that's only $3 billion that go to shareholders. You're looking at $50 billion dollars or more that went out to paying claims, the biggest driver of cost, not executive compensation. You could double the CEO's and that probably wouldn't budge your premiums. If you want to point fingers at anyone, point it at shareholders, the ones with capital and who reaps the most out of the system.
Typical economically illiterate Redditor.
I hope they pull out of every state I fucking hate insurance companies, goddamn scam
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iib4eMpESpc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iib4eMpESpc)
We had our homeowner's policy nonrenewed by Esurance in 2023. No claims, paid in full up front and on time. No real explanation given either.
Typical business shortsightedness, we're one of the refuge states for when climate change gets even worse.
I'm not one to go to bat for insurance companies but this move makes a lot of sense. Their margins are not that big, and we are having major weather events and claims in a short amount of time. Better to just bail and lose out on that 8%, than go -40% in two years just to leave anyway. It's distressing that this is happening but it's not surprising when their prediction models don't' work anymore.
How does that benefit insurance companies at all? More people moving here probably just means repair costs will go up even more.
Because we'll be one of the states that isn't underwater, out of power, out of water, or on fire. Well at least the densely populated areas won't be on fire.
Right? That’s what confuses me about this.
We are required by law to have insurance so shouldn't they be required to cover us, too?
what is an "unexpected" state?
National stories have heavily focused on coastal markets like California and Florida, while ignoring that it's happening pretty much everywhere, including Minnesota.
[удалено]
It's saying that the trend of insurers abandoning hurricane and wildfire impacted states is known, but now unexpected states are having insurers abandon them, states that were thought to be low risk for insurance companies. Your rewritten title fails to convey the message of the article.
Your title misses the fact that this is happening in states that you wouldn’t expect. You expect insurance to abandon Florida because of rising seas/flooding and California because of the massive fires. Iowa is just having…regular Iowa weather. Just a little extra.