In a matter of days, the Florida legislature is poised to contemplate one other sweeping spherical of authorized modifications to Florida’s property insurance coverage market. In massive half on the behest of CFO Jimmy Partronis, whose campaigns are largely funded by the insurance coverage corporations he’s supposed to manage, the legislature will contemplate a slate of “reforms” taken immediately from the insurance coverage business’s Christmas checklist.
The alleged want for additional abolishing extra client protections, lots of which have been ingrained in Florida regulation for many years, is runaway litigation pushed by attorneys, public adjusters, and restoration contractors attempting to sport the system. But is that true, or is that this merely propaganda utilized by the insurance coverage foyer to insulate themselves from accountability in Tallahassee’s present politically pleasant surroundings?
Based on the statistics revealed by the Office of Insurance Regulation, the latter appears extra possible. Specifically, as of November 2020 (greater than three years after Hurricane Irma), 1,125,588 insurance coverage claims had been filed statewide because of Hurricane Irma. Of these claims, 955,852 had been for residential property, and 62,949 had been filed for injury to business buildings. Given the large wind subject of this storm, the dearth of widespread flooding, and the statewide destruction, this storm was the most expensive in Florida historical past till Hurricane Ian.
While important quantities had been paid, the statistics present that 348,706 of the claims submitted after the storm had been closed with out cost, i.e., denied. That’s a whopping 31% of the full variety of claims submitted by policyholders. For residential claims, greater than 25% had been denied, whereas business claims got here in at an astounding 49%. In Lee County, one of many hardest hit areas of Florida, 29,336 of the 102,319 claims submitted (29%) had been refused.
The litigation that got here from Hurricane Irma has been used as a springboard for the insurance coverage foyer and its legislative agenda. But what do you anticipate to occur when, as an business, you deny 31% of the claims submitted to you after a traditionally devastating storm? Are attorneys, public adjusters, and contractors actually the driving pressure behind the next Irma litigation, or is it offended policyholders who didn’t obtain greenback one after paying hefty premiums for supposed protection?
At the top of the day, there are a selection of causes for the inflow of litigation in recent times. But to disregard the systemic issues in Florida’s insurance coverage market (underfunded corporations utterly depending on the reinsurance market, inadequately staffed and inexperienced claims departments, and outright fraudulent conduct like pressuring subject adjusters to alter stories and estimates to reduce or deny cost) is a large mistake. This is very true when making selections that will completely take away the rights of weak policyholders after their lives are turned the wrong way up following a disaster.