"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 13:34:48 -0400, JimH wrote:


I do not know if it is true but it would not surprise me. The company
most likely decided that the risk of insuring coastal property outweighed
the benefit. They have the option of deciding not to insure homes and
business in hurricane prone areas. They are a business with a goal of
making money, not losing it.

Huh? An insurance companies job *is* risk assessment. If they were doing
their job correctly, they would be making money regardless of the risk.
If there is no risk, there is no need for insurance. One of the problems
with the insurance industry is they underestimated/disregarded the risk of
hurricanes. Yes, they are in business to make money, but it's not a gift.
If they don't know their business, they deserve to fail.

Risk assessment indeed,. But when the competition is offering it at a
lower price and the loss ratio is high, it is time to move out of the market
or line of coverage. It happens all the time, especially now with a
softening market.

I for one am tired of subsidizing folks living on the coast in hurricane
prone areas. They build luxurious homes, rent them out for a profit, enjoy
the beautiful areas the remaining times only to have them torn down by
hurricanes. All they have to do is collect federal subsidies and insurance
money and rebuild bigger and more luxurious. No risk....that is up to
someone else to carry.

Risk assessment indeed.