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.