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.

"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.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:25:01 -0400, JimH wrote:


"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.

Exactly, I believe this is what I said using different words. That
"competition" is the insurance industry and if that competition's premiums
are too low for the risk, they deserve to fail.


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.

I wouldn't disagree, but this issue is more than just an insurance issue.
Somebody allowed people to build on barrier islands and flood plains, and
those that decide to live there, deserve to bear the costs.


Risk assessment indeed.

"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.


Forgot to add. If you think this decision to pull out was not based on a
risk assessment then you indeed do not know anything about the business.

If they were doing
their job correctly, they would be making money regardless of the risk.

Pure hogwash. I guess you don't know anything about the business.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:42:19 -0400, JimH wrote:


Huh? An insurance companies job *is* risk assessment.


Forgot to add. If you think this decision to pull out was not based on a
risk assessment then you indeed do not know anything about the business.

If they were doing
their job correctly, they would be making money regardless of the risk.

Pure hogwash. I guess you don't know anything about the business.

Well then, enlighten me. There has always been a risk of hurricanes in
Florida. Insurance companies have always been writing policies in
Florida. If they are not making money, what is the problem? If it's not
improper risk assessment, what is it?

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:42:19 -0400, JimH wrote:


Huh? An insurance companies job *is* risk assessment.


Forgot to add. If you think this decision to pull out was not based on a
risk assessment then you indeed do not know anything about the business.

If they were doing
their job correctly, they would be making money regardless of the risk.

Pure hogwash. I guess you don't know anything about the business.

Well then, enlighten me. There has always been a risk of hurricanes in
Florida. Insurance companies have always been writing policies in
Florida. If they are not making money, what is the problem? If it's not
improper risk assessment, what is it?


A soft market, increased property values and a prediction for a bad
hurricane season. ;-)

thunder wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2005 16:42:19 -0400, JimH wrote:


Huh? An insurance companies job *is* risk assessment.


Forgot to add. If you think this decision to pull out was not
based on a
risk assessment then you indeed do not know anything about the
business.

If they were doing
their job correctly, they would be making money regardless of the
risk.

Pure hogwash. I guess you don't know anything about the business.

Well then, enlighten me. There has always been a risk of hurricanes
in
Florida. Insurance companies have always been writing policies in
Florida. If they are not making money, what is the problem? If it's
not
improper risk assessment, what is it?

It's called population. The old time Floridians had enough sense to
stay back inland somewhat, the newcomers came and built as close to the
beach as they could.