We are continuing our discussion of anti-concurrent causation clauses in homeowners insurance policies. ACC clauses have garnered attention in the past few months as states less well-versed in insurance than Florida dealt with the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. Homeowners were surprised to learn that their insurance policies included a kind of all-or-nothing coverage provision.
With hurricane season looming over Florida homeowners, it may be time for us to learn something from other states with less major storm experience. When Superstorm Sandy hit Mid-Atlantic and New England states last year, homeowners and commercial property owners learned the hard way that anti-concurrent causation clauses in insurance policies are valid and enforceable. At least one of those states has passed a law requiring insurers to explain the ACC clause in a separate notice to each and every new and renewing policyholder.
Florida Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart believes the country should catch up with his home state when it comes to building codes. The congressman is the chief House sponsor of HR 1878, the Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2013. The bill was also introduced in 2007, 2009 and 2011. Proponents hope that the fourth time is the charm.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott apparently had no reaction to the Citizens reform bill that landed on his desk last week. His office said only that he was “reviewing the proposal.” There was no hint that he was either disappointed or relieved that the rating methodology changes did not make it into the final bill. Legislators and homeowners alike will just have to wait to see what happens.
The Florida Legislature has sent a less ambitious insurance bill to Gov. Rick Scott than some lawmakers had hoped. The bill does not offer a complete overhaul of Citizens Property Insurance Corp.; rather, it represents a more incremental approach to reform that seemed to go over better with legislators concerned, in particular, about raising rates.
We are back to talking about the class action lawsuit filed in federal court against a homeowners property insurance company. The lead plaintiffs in the case estimate that as many as 100,000 policyholders could be the victims of the insurer’s contract breach.
We are continuing our discussion from our last post. The subject is a class action lawsuit filed in a Florida federal court in which the plaintiffs say their homeowners insurance company increased their coverage and raised their premiums without their consent. Generally, state law dictates that an insurance company notify policyholders of any change in coverage in writing, allowing policyholders enough time to cancel their policies without incurring penalties.
A Florida couple is leading the charge on behalf of an estimated 100,000 homeowners whose insurance coverage was increased without their approval. By upping the coverage, the plaintiffs say, the insurance company was able to raise premiums, again without the consent of the policyholders.
A class action lawsuit against five major U.S. mortgage lenders cannot proceed, according to a decision from a Miami federal judge. The plaintiffs were suing Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and HSBC, as well as two insurance companies, regarding the practice of forcing homeowners to pay higher-than-average premiums for insurance when their coverage lapses. The court did say that the 21 plaintiffs could file individual suits if they wished.
We are still reviewing the provisions of Senate Bill 7018, one of the Citizens Property Insurance Corp. reform proposals being considered by the Florida Legislature. In our last two posts, we discussed how the bill would change the rating structure and how it would limit eligibility for more expensive homes over the next few years.
