- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Louisiana homeowners insurance market “unraveling.”
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:32 am to Slippy
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:32 am to Slippy
People need to lower their damn coverage. I’m buying a house at the top of the housing market this month. Insurance company wants me to cover for 35% over purchase price that includes the damn land. Ridiculous. I know inflation is bad but f that. I covered 90% of purchase price and saved around 20%. Plus the odds are low af the house gets taken out to the slab and guess what I don’t have to replace the gd slab
1
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:34 am to udtiger
Texas' tort reform has been good for the state.
Louisiana's attorney lobby will be what kills the state.
Louisiana's attorney lobby will be what kills the state.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:40 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
How is that funded?
The concept of funding escapes most. Of course someone pays... guess who? It isn't the state or the insurance companies. The costs get passed down to the consumer.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:42 am to udtiger
quote:
Research how many other states are direct action (you can name the insurance company as a defendant) in a 3rd party case.
I don’t know I kinda agree with Louisiana policy toward insurance companies
an insurance policy against liability is not issued primarily for the protection of the insured but for the protection of the public.” (Davies v. Consolidated Underwriters, 6 So.2d 351 (La. 1942).)
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:49 am to lepdagod
quote:
I don’t know I kinda agree with Louisiana policy toward insurance companies
an insurance policy against liability is not issued primarily for the protection of the insured but for the protection of the public.” (Davies v. Consolidated Underwriters, 6 So.2d 351 (La. 1942).)
Then why aren't the vast majority of states direct action?
Jury knowing there's an insurance policy is a main reason why damage awards are so ridiculous in Louisiana.
Why do you think Gordon, Spencer, DD and the other TV lawyers ONLY talk about insurance companies in their ads?
Plus, how fair is direct action for any auto insurance company sued in Calcasieu Parish for the next 10 years?
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:50 am to lepdagod
quote:
an insurance policy against liability is not issued primarily for the protection of the insured but for the protection of the public.” (Davies v. Consolidated Underwriters, 6 So.2d 351 (La. 1942).)
Insurance companies don't run into other people on the road. Placing an insurance company as the defendant in a two party tort case seems pretty jacked. Protection of society is achieved when each driver provides proof of financial responsibility (Insurance or self insurance).
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:53 am to LifeTimeTiger2
quote:
People need to lower their damn coverage. I’m buying a house at the top of the housing market this month. Insurance company wants me to cover for 35% over purchase price that includes the damn land. Ridiculous. I know inflation is bad but f that.
Well what that also does is raise the level for hurricane deductibles (since they are a percentage of total coverage) as well as the threshhold for 50% damage (when some other things kick in).
Posted on 4/2/22 at 10:59 am to Lsupimp
Yes. Insurance is pooled for the whole state.
I live pretty far inland and my insurer pulled out of the state completely this year, resulting in a new policy which cost a few hundred dollars more a year.
Not as bad as other people have gotten it but this process is likely to continue if we get another year of multiple named storms.
I live pretty far inland and my insurer pulled out of the state completely this year, resulting in a new policy which cost a few hundred dollars more a year.
Not as bad as other people have gotten it but this process is likely to continue if we get another year of multiple named storms.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:00 am to Slippy
Insurers are leaving the state because of the absolute insane litigation climate. The plaintiff bar can demonize them and call them liars all day long, but that really isn’t going to mean much when they are gone and we are all LA citizens insureds. Louisiana is a shithole because of litigation. It distinguishes us more than any other factor.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:01 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
Once again Louisiana needs to look to Florida for the solution.
I would agree that Florida is more proactive regarding insurance but they are dealing with their own issues. I know Progressive sending out non-renewals if you have an older roof.
Also if Florida gets hit south and east coast Florida directly the same or back to back years there are going to be major issues similar to Louisiana.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:01 am to Slippy
It will unravel and ravel continuously
A storm will hit, small companies will bankrupt or leave the market. Someone or a couple someones will eventually swoop in when they see a void in the market and an opportunity to make money. They will create or bring in insurance companies offering low premiums. In a matter of a couple years they will over expose themselves and have massive rate increases and become strict on inspections and cancel half the new business written. Then a new storm will hit and they will fold or they will go insolvent before a storm even comes. Rinse, repeat
If you are in Louisiana you will have to just get use to shopping your policies every year to 3 years if you aren’t doing it already
A storm will hit, small companies will bankrupt or leave the market. Someone or a couple someones will eventually swoop in when they see a void in the market and an opportunity to make money. They will create or bring in insurance companies offering low premiums. In a matter of a couple years they will over expose themselves and have massive rate increases and become strict on inspections and cancel half the new business written. Then a new storm will hit and they will fold or they will go insolvent before a storm even comes. Rinse, repeat
If you are in Louisiana you will have to just get use to shopping your policies every year to 3 years if you aren’t doing it already
This post was edited on 4/2/22 at 11:09 am
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:05 am to udtiger
quote:
Then why aren't the vast majority of states direct action?
Because they aren’t … I mean it’s the same reason weed laws vary state to state… states decide at the state level… i understand your point though but insurance companies not exactly on the right side of these argument
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:06 am to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
The concept of funding escapes most. Of course someone pays... guess who? It isn't the state or the insurance companies. The costs get passed down to the consume
Right. Either it's a government bailout or it's being funded by policyholders anyways.
And I feel like the presence of it probably allows more insurers to be comfortable writing policies, which is good, as long as they are not irresponsible and the fund collapses.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:08 am to lepdagod
quote:
an insurance policy against liability is not issued primarily for the protection of the insured but for the protection of the public.” (Davies v. Consolidated Underwriters, 6 So.2d 351 (La. 1942).)
The public needs to be protected from liability.
The public should not profit from liability.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:09 am to ShermanTxTiger
quote:
Placing an insurance company as the defendant in a two party tort case seems pretty jacked.
Explain this comment… because the law requires you to carry insurance no matter how financially sound a person is for a reason… if said insurance company takes the risk to employ said driver what is the responsibility of said insurance company???
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:12 am to DevilDagNS
quote:
Insurers are leaving the state because of the absolute insane litigation climate. The plaintiff bar can demonize them and call them liars all day long, but that really isn’t going to mean much when they are gone and we are all LA citizens insureds. Louisiana is a shithole because of litigation. It distinguishes us more than any other factor.
It's a cycle.
The more litigation we have, the more insurers dig in and refuse to pay even reasonable claims, which results in more litigation, etc.
If the litigation, especially in auto liability, could focus on making people whole, as opposed to making people better off than they were, we would fix a lot of these issues.
I've been in two auto accidents in almost 10 years, hit by someone, and the process to get things handled has taken significantly longer than necessary, to the point where both times I considered hiring an attorney. All I wanted was my car fixed and medical bills (which were very few) paid. I didn't even ask for pain/suffering or lost wages.
And both times, you would think I was asking for the kingdom jewels.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:20 am to lepdagod
quote:
Explain this comment… because the law requires you to carry insurance no matter how financially sound a person is for a reason… if said insurance company takes the risk to employ said driver what is the responsibility of said insurance company???
This makes zero sense.
If the policy exists, the policy is there (absent a valid coverage defense).
Tortfeasor gets sued, judgment rendered, insurance company pays the award up to its limits.
There is zero reason the jury needs to know of the existence of the insurance company or the policy.
The fact they do know the insurance is there absolutely influences the damage award.
This post was edited on 4/2/22 at 11:21 am
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:30 am to udtiger
quote:
There is zero reason the jury needs to know of the existence of the insurance company or the policy. The fact they do know the insurance is there absolutely influences the damage award.
How could they not???… if having car insurance is required by law the first question will always be was that person insured … you legally cannot drive the car without insurance…
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:37 am to LSUFanHouston
quote:
It's a cycle
It’s not. Without meaningful and lasting action by the legislature to curb the insanity, they will leave and not return.
Posted on 4/2/22 at 11:48 am to Slippy
Let’s be blunt here. Living in a hurricane zone, at or below sea level, is not a smart thing to do. These rates should have been jacked up years ago, probably even higher than they are going now. The inevitability of a major claim makes this less “insurance” and more of a prepaid rebuilding fund. Sucks to say that to people involved in paying the piper now, but it’s true.
The funny thing about some of this is that the same people RIGHTFULLY against single payer healthcare are gung ho to have other ratepayers in less disaster prone areas subsidize their home/flood insurance.
I’ve said for years that flood insurance should have a clause that after the second major claim, that property becomes uninsurable. The owner is paid market value for it and they can either rebuild at their own risk or take the cash and let the land go back to nature.
The funny thing about some of this is that the same people RIGHTFULLY against single payer healthcare are gung ho to have other ratepayers in less disaster prone areas subsidize their home/flood insurance.
I’ve said for years that flood insurance should have a clause that after the second major claim, that property becomes uninsurable. The owner is paid market value for it and they can either rebuild at their own risk or take the cash and let the land go back to nature.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News