Learn. Share. Connect. (51,922 Members)  - Join
 


Site Tools

Join Now or Sign In
for Full Access to All Features
Mortgage Rates
30 Yr FRM 4.98% -0.05%
15 Yr FRM 4.40% -0.06%
1 Yr ARM 4.47% -0.10%
5/1 Yr ARM 4.35% -0.07%
30 YR Tres 4.40% -0.01%
Fed Prime 3.25% 0.00%
Receive Free Email Alerts
Stay up to date on breaking news and blog posts with our free News Alert Service

Florida Tornados and Scientific Reports Bad News For Homeowners

by Glenn Setzer on
 Email Page (New!)   |     Print   |     Bookmark

Homeowners might not have realized it, but the news last Thursday and Friday carried a double whammy that may be more worrisome than the housing bubble bursting.

First were the news reports out of Florida that nine tornados, up to F3 in force, had dropped out of the darkness seriously damaging or destroying 1,500 buildings and killing 20 people in the central part of the state. Next was a report from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which effectively eliminated further discussion on the reality and cause of Global Warming. The Panel's report stated that there is a 90 percent certainty that humans and their greenhouse gas emissions are causing warming and that global temperatures could rise by an average of 4.5 degrees by the end of the century.

The effects of such warming are still being debated but some estimates are that ocean temperatures will increase 1 degree or more (contributing to the nourishment of hurricanes which are expected to increase in intensity and become a threat to more northern locations than before) and that sea levels will increase seven to 23 inches both because of the melting of ice caps and because water volume increases as it warms.

So what do these two pieces of news have to do with homeowners other than those directly affected by Friday's weather? A lot.

The tornados were freakish. Not only were they strong - probably the strongest in Florida in many years - but they were out of season. Tornados are typically a spring and summer phenomenon. And this follows a winter of record high temperatures in much of the U.S. followed by paralyzing ice storms and now record low temperatures across the northern tier. Clearly our weather is changing, perhaps only temporarily and maybe even independent of global warming.

But news reports of the tornado damage brought a truth home to roost. Victim after victim, pawing through the wreckage of their homes, told reporters that they were uninsured, either because their premiums had skyrocketed into the realm of unaffordable over the last few years or because their insurance had been cancelled outright.

Therein lays the danger to homeowners and maybe to the whole economy.

According to Ceres, a national network of investors, environmental organizations and other public interest groups, homeowners' insurance coverage is at risk in coastal areas that have been hard hit by seven hurricanes in the 2004 and 2005. Ceres' statistics include the following:

  • FLORIDA: As of last March, 225,971 homeowners' property policies were cancelled and 224,868 policies were not renewed About 489,418 new policies were written by both private insurers and Citizens, the state-operated high risk pool. Allstate Insurance had plans to let lapse about 120,000 policies in Florida by the end of 2006 following cancellation of 95,000 policies in 2005. State Farm, the state's largest insurer announced it would not renew 39,000 windstorm policies in 2006 and plans to cancel all master condo policies. Premiums were doubling for windstorm insurance in many parts of the state with owners of 1,500 sf. homes facing premiums of $10,000 for wind damage alone with total insurance costs of $13,000 and deductibles of up to $18,000.

  •  
  • GULF COAST: Allstate Insurance has indicated its intent to raise premiums and deductibles and reduce benefits for temporary living expenses and is dropping coverage completely for 140,000 customers in 18 Louisiana parishes.

  •  
  • NEW YORK: Allstate is no longer offering new policies on Long Island, New York City, or Westchester County and will not renew 30,000 policies because of hurricane risk. The company also cancelled 28,000 policies in 2005. Ceres points out that New York has not had a damaging hurricane for almost 70 years.

  •  
  • MASSACHUSETTS: Three different insurance companies have dropped a total of over 23,000 homeowners on Cape Cod and other coastal areas since 2004.

  •  
  • RHODE ISLAND: Some insurers plan to discontinue homeowner coverage in coastal neighborhoods and others are limiting or refusing to write new policies. The state's insurance regulator has been allowing companies to cancel policies in some neighborhoods so the companies don't leave the state altogether.

Terms are also being tightened. Ceres states that some insurers in hurricane prone areas are now basing deductibles on percentages rather than dollar amounts and that these deductibles can ranges from 1 percent of insured value up to as much as 15 percent.

Many homeowners have been forced to drop windstorm coverage, keeping only basic property casualty and liability either because the coverage is no longer available or the cost is prohibitive. When I inquired about my wind coverage and whether it covered a catastrophe involving one of six huge Live Oaks that surround my house I was told it did but that I would have to bear the cost of tree removal, effectively raising my $1,000 deductible to about $8,500 if even one tree fell.

Add to the woes of coastal homeowners sharply rising premiums in California and the Southeast from weather related wildfires, ice storms and unusually severe summer thunderstorms in the Midwest. Flooding is another issue. Years ago the Federal government was forced to come forward to insure against surface water when private companies universally dropped flood coverage. Hurricane Katrina effectively bankrupted the U.S. flood insurance program ten-times over even though coverage is capped at a maximum of $250,000 - hardly enough to replace most homes in coastal areas.

So, what happens to a homeowner with a mortgage who can no longer obtain homeowners' or flood coverage? Failing to carry coverage is generally considered an act of default on the mortgage, and while the lender is unlikely to start legal proceedings, it will probably "force place" coverage with a high risk insurer. This can be many times more expensive than traditional insurance and lenders will usually only arrange coverage for the amount of the mortgage and not insure contents or owner liability.

And what if you are buying or selling a house in an affected area? If you can't find insurance you can't get a mortgage. More likely you will be placed in your state's excess risk pools. Citizens is expected to soon be the largest carrier in Florida and has been charged with inefficiency and even corruption. Some states are now considering or have enacted a surcharge on privately issued policies to help fund their high risk pools. But, if weather-related claims continue at the pace of the last few years it is unlikely that even state and federal coverage will be sustainable. Then what happens to the housing market?


Comments

Join Now or Login to Post Comments

Lindsey
on
A great way out of this dilemna is changing over to an RV living style. An RV can evacuate from coming storms and still provide cheap living space. America needs more economical RV parks and fewer energy-pigging McMansions. Each enjoys coastal living, only one pays for it. Its time to beat the insurance companies at their own game and starve 'em out of business.
Jason
on
It looks like Montana, Utah, and Idaho, and Nevada will be seeing an increase in their State Populations. Homes are still quite affordable, and there's a ton of land.
John Ramirez
on
I recently was informed by Allstate that they would not longer cover windstorm and I already have flood insurance. I looked over the policy and they basically cover very little. I looked specifically for those words that nullify the previous statement or place serious conidtions on the statement. I am probably paying for something I will never be able to use. My question is when is this going to stop? I would rather invest that money and save it. Do we really need insurance companies?
Alisa
on
Colorado's housing market is on the rise. I love this state!
Dennis
on
I remember taking a statistics course in college. The professor used insurance companies frequently to demonstrate how the use of statisical formulas can be very beneficial for business. The professor refered to insurance companies as "rip off mobs". They have it figured using statistics, how much money they will lose given the worst case senerio, that they were accurate +/- 2% in most cases.
on
What is a something you can buy, but have no control over what you have to pay just to own it? The people who help you with your purchase also have no control over what you have to pay, but people walking or driving down the street DO! And people who have absolutely no financial interest in it control how much you have to pay. If a person purchases a home, they are required to pay insurance based on what the insurance company deems as "replacement cost". The value of the home is decided by "fair market value" which is determined by what a potential home buyer would pay for a house. Therefore if a person tells a real estate agent they want to make an offer on my house that is substantially higher than the real value, it is then necessary to get an appraiser that will agree that the house is worth that much money. Now it comes to the loan on the house. Getting the bank to go along with it is the next step. If all this all falls in line, although it may take several steaks and scotch to get ''er done, my "fair market value", "replacement costs, and property taxes all skyrocket as well as my neighbors. A person is required, and rightfully so, to protect the mortgage company who loaned them the money to purchase their home. Unfortunately, the insurance companies who have no investment in the property in any way, shape or form are allowed to set (almost totally arbitrary) whatever they see fit. This is grossly unfair because a homeowner who has a house that cost $150,000 and owes $25,000 on the mortgage is still required to carry the same amount of coverage that a person who purchased a $150,000 property and owes $120,000 on the property. Insurance should be set up in a manner that would allow the homeowner to set a selected amount of insurance. Mandatory rates should only include the amount of money that the mortgage company still has invested in the property, and the homeowner should be able to select the amount of insurance desired over the mortgage. For example, the homeowner above who owes $25,000 but wants to insure the property for a additional $25,000 should only be required to pay for the amount of mortgage debt plus $25,000. My insurance and taxes are currently governed by people who "guess" what my property is worth and "guess" how much it will cost to replace it! I understand the insurance companies have been operating for years with their standard methods of operation. It's long time overdue to re-structure the insurance industry.
on
What is a something you can buy, but have no control over what you have to pay just to own it? The people who help you with your purchase also have no control over what you have to pay, but people walking or driving down the street DO! And people who have absolutely no financial interest in it control how much you have to pay. If a person purchases a home, they are required to pay insurance based on what the insurance company deems as "replacement cost". The value of the home is decided by "fair market value" which is determined by what a potential home buyer would pay for a house. Therefore if a person tells a real estate agent they want to make an offer on my house that is substantially higher than the real value, it is then necessary to get an appraiser that will agree that the house is worth that much money. Now it comes to the loan on the house. Getting the bank to go along with it is the next step. If all this all falls in line, although it may take several steaks and scotch to get ''er done", my "fair market value", "replacement costs, and property taxes all skyrocket as well as my neighbors. A person is required, and rightfully so, to protect the mortgage company who loaned them the money to purchase their home. Unfortunately, the insurance companies who have no investment in the property in any way, shape or form are allowed to set (almost totally arbitrary) whatever they see fit. This is grossly unfair because a homeowner who has a house that cost $150,000 and owes $25,000 on the mortgage is still required to carry the same amount of coverage that a person who purchased a $150,000 property and owes $120,000 on the property. Insurance should be set up in a manner that would allow the homeowner to set a selected amount of insurance. Mandatory rates should only include the amount of money that the mortgage company still has invested in the property, and the homeowner should be able to select the amount of insurance desired over the mortgage. For example, the homeowner above who owes $25,000 but wants to insure the property for a additional $25,000 should only be required to pay for the amount of mortgage debt plus $25,000. My insurance and taxes are currently governed by people who "guess" what my property is worth and "guess" how much it will cost to replace it! I understand the insurance companies have been operating for years with their standard methods of operation. It's long time overdue to re-structure the insurance industry.