Smart SpendingSmart Spending

Report: Insurers cut coverage for disasters

A consumer organization says insurance companies are raising rates and cutting coverage for homes damaged by tornadoes and other natural events.

By MSN Money Partner Mar 1, 2012 9:20AM

This post comes from Mark Chalon Smith at partner site on MSN MoneyInsurers are cutting coverage and paying fewer benefits for damage due to tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters, according to a study released by the Consumer Federation of America.


The study, "The Insurance Industry's Incredible Disappearing Weather Catastrophe Risk" (.pdf file), contends that insurers "have hollowed out the coverage they offer to homeowners by increasing deductibles and capping the amount they will pay if the home is damaged or destroyed. These coverage reductions expose taxpayers to higher disaster assistance payouts because homeowners have less money available to help themselves."


The CFA report says that policyholders have endured "significantly raised rates over the years" when it comes to buying protection. Insurers have also shifted coverage for homes in high-risk areas to state insurance pools, reducing the insurers' own financial jeopardy, according to the CFA.


Eleven states have recently received requests for homeowners insurance rate increases of 18% or more, according to the report. The states, according to the CFA, are Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.


The study does stress that major insurers have frequently saved money through "legitimate" strategies, including risk diversification and other prudent financial decisions. But the applause ends there.


"Insurance commissioners should block many of these pending rate increases because they place an unwarranted financial burden on homeowners, many of whom are coping with severe financial difficulties in a bad economy," says J. Robert Hunter, CFA's director of insurance. "In the last 20 years, insurers have been so successful at shifting costs to consumers and taxpayers that they are currently overcapitalized and cannot justify higher homeowners' rates." (Post continues below.)

Insurance group: Report 'out of touch with reality'

The Insurance Information Institute, which has battled with the CFA in the past, attacked the report. III President Robert Hartwig characterized it as "totally out of touch with reality . . . it's beyond bizarre." He disputes the view that insurers are not paying enough in catastrophe claims, saying losses from natural disasters are approaching record highs and could grow in coming years as more people migrate to coastal and other higher-risk regions.


"The timing of this report strikes me as odd considering 2011 was one of the most expensive years in history" for insurers when it came to paying homeowner claims, Hartwig said.


It's appropriate for homeowners to spend more for coverage if they pick states prone to natural disasters, says Loretta Worters, vice president of the III. "If they decide to live in high-risk areas and take on that risk," she says, "they should bear some of that (financial) responsibility" if a catastrophe strikes.


Both Hartwig and Worters also say insurers are not overcapitalized at the expense of consumers. Insurers with good balance sheets guarantee payouts for policyholders, they say. Hartwig asks if critics would prefer insurers to be undercapitalized and unable to meet their obligations.


The study concludes that the industry has shifted from a calculated risk taker to a risk avoider. "Not only have insurers insulated themselves from their historic share of hurricane risk, they have made no serious effort to cover risks associated with floods or terrorism, which are entirely backed by federal taxpayers," the CFA said. 


Consumer group's action plan for disasters and insurance

The CFA suggests several state and federal steps to protect consumers and taxpayers.

The federation recommends that states:

  • Carefully examine national data on limited catastrophe losses and excessive surplus before approving any insurer-requested rate increases.
  • Be "on guard against unwarranted attempts" by insurers to use catastrophe losses as part of their rationale for "jacking up rates."
  • Ban use of "fine-print tricks that unjustifiably deny policyholders coverage when they need it the most," such as anti-concurrent causation clauses.

In addition, CFA recommends that coastal states form an interstate compact to spread risk and lower costs by developing common insurance pools and provide consumers and insurers with consistent requirements. A common approach would also better position states -- especially small ones -- to "resist coercive efforts by insurers to weaken regulatory protections for consumers," the federation said.


More on and MSN Money:

Mar 2, 2012 9:47AM
Lenders force you to buy worthless insurance. Does that make sense?
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?


Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.


Smart Spending brings you the best money-saving tips from MSN Money and the rest of the Web. Join the conversation on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.