re: Louisiana homeowners insurance market “unraveling.”

quote:

---

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.

---

Florida's "success" as of late has been because most storms hitting the state are hitting undeveloped areas, or smaller storms hitting developed ones.

Put a Cat 3/4 in a highly developed area and their insurers will start fleeing as well.

quote:

---

Let’s be blunt here. Living in a hurricane zone, at or below sea level, is not a smart thing to do.

---

I hear you. Where else do we apply this to?

Do we apply to the west coast where there are fires and earthquakes?

Do we apply this to the midwest where there are tornadoes and spring floods?

Do we apply this to the east coast where there are hurricanes?

Where do you want all these people to live?

Valid point. But I would also point out that most of those things are “low loss” events that affect very few homes. A tornado or fire may hit a few hundred homes and is completely random. A hurricane wipes out half a state every year.

But yes, we shouldn’t be perpetually rebuilding in flood prone areas anywhere.

I agree with you. Southern Cal, Arizona and Nevada have no water and shouldn’t have 50 mil people living in a desert. I just use hurricanes as an example. So yes, I’d say if your house is destroyed twice by the same disaster, you need to find somewhere else to live.

There are always changing factors, though. For example, St Bernard Parish built a goddamn fortress wall to the east while the canal levees in the 9th Ward were rebuilt to higher engineering standards.

In Jefferson Parish, flood rates went down (until recently) because the parish made several infrastructure improvements to mitigate/minimize flooding.

Shouldnt be punished to live somewhere that made legitimate improvements to the flood environment.

quote:

---

Shouldnt be punished to live somewhere that made legitimate improvements to the flood environment.

---

Making improvements would reduce the likelihood of that second major loss. But let’s be honest here. It is not a matter of if, but when, the NO area will be wiped out again regardless of the improvements made. Pretty certain it will happen at some point in the next 20-30 years based on history.

quote:

---

So yes, I’d say if your house is destroyed twice by the same disaster, you need to find somewhere else to live.

---

If/when an earthquake occurs in California, this board will laugh it's arse off and say "stupid idiots why would you live on a fault line dur durr I hope it falls in the Pacific"

But it's just SOP to have the possibility of a hurricane, get the Feds to buy generators and chainsaws for homeowners, get roof replaced and maybe some interior flooring and drywall remodeling every 2-3 years.

quote:

---

Jury knowing there's an insurance policy is a main reason why damage awards are so ridiculous in Louisiana.

---

Everyone knows there an insurance company anyway; it’s compulsory.

quote:

---

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…

---

I’m not an insurance expert, so hopefully those who are experts can correct any mistakes here.. but I think this is one of those scenarios where the original purpose of something has been twisted and molded over the years.

At its core, insurance is a contract between two parties (the insurer and the insured) where the insured pays a premium to limit their risk. The original intent of liability insurance was for the insurance company to reimburse the policy holder for their losses, within the policy limits, in the event that the policy holder is found liable for damages to a third party.

For example: driver A runs a red light and hits driver B. Driver B sues driver A and wins. The court finds driver A responsible for $20k in damages. Driver A pays the damages and then files a claim with his insurance company to recover those damages.

But then the question shifts to: what happens if driver A has nothing to lose? Then there’s not much reason for him to carry insurance in the first place which becomes a public safety issue. So the state says “OK, if you want the privilege of driving on our roads, you have to be able to pay for damages.” Enter minimum coverage laws.

But insurance is still a contract between the insurer and the insured. If driver A doesn’t have a penny to his name and can’t pay the $20k in damages, he has no loss to collect from the insurance company. Driver B gets fricked anyway. So the state says “OK, also - if the policy holder is insolvent, the insurance company still has to pay the damages.”

We have now shifted from insurance being something people choose to buy to limit their losses, to insurance being something people have to buy to limit others’ losses. And because it’s mandatory (not technically mandatory, but effectively so because driving is seen as a right not a privilege) there are a host of other considerations that come into play. Insurance needs to be affordable, but also reliable and available to all groups. So it becomes highly regulated by the government. And because everyone has insurance, this entire industry emerges around personal injury lawsuits.

Allowing people to sue insurance companies directly without first obtaining a judgement against the actual driver (or property owner etc.) just erodes this further by framing the lawsuit as a dispute between an injured party and a faceless insurance company that only exists to cover these types of losses, instead of a dispute between two drivers who got into an accident.

/Rant

quote:

---

nobody wanting to write business here

---

Imagine that.