We’re taking a brief detour from Florida’s insurance woes today. We noticed a brief news article about an insurance company that’s taking full advantage of new technology while offering coverage to countries that have no insurance industry to speak of. The article talked about the insurance sale, but not claims payment, though, so we’ll leave that to speculation.
A host of life insurance companies announced recently that they are expanding their e-underwriting services to more states. The insurers hope that e-underwriting will speed up the process for term-life applicants enough to motivate even more consumers to purchase the coverage. In our last post, we talked about the service in general. This post is devoted to offering consumers a few things to think about before they go down the e-underwriting road.
The Internet is making serious inroads into the life insurance business, especially when it comes to term-life policies. Florida is just one of the many states where insurers are expanding their e-underwriting processes. It’s certainly faster, but consumers need to keep a few things in mind before they rush to the web.
In our last post, we were talking about the “Restoration of Legal Rights for Claimants under Holocaust-Era Insurance Policies Act of 2011” introduced by Florida’s senior U.S. Senator, Bill Nelson. Holocaust survivors groups have sought this kind of relief for years. The issue, of course, is denied and delayed life insurance payments from Holocaust-era policies. The last post covered the basic provisions of the bill.
Florida’s senior U.S. Senator introduced the “Restoration of Legal Rights for Claimants under Holocaust-Era Insurance Policies Act of 2011” last week, answering the call of survivors groups all over the country. As noted previously in our blog, Holocaust survivors, their families and the families of victims of the Holocaust have long sought payment on life insurance policies purchased during the war. They claim insurers have failed to live up to their obligations by delaying or denying claims.
Residents near Christchurch, New Zealand were recently struck with a 6.3 magnitude earthquake, reminding the United States of their vulnerability to a natural disaster of this type.
This is the last in a short series of posts about long-term care insurance. The insurance is supposed to cover the costs of home care or a nursing facility when the policyholder becomes disabled. Many insurance companies underestimated their costs when they introduced the coverage, and they’ve pulled out of the market. Meanwhile, policyholders are getting frustrated when claims are denied or delayed, or when they realize the terms of their policy aren’t quite what they thought. A recent article highlighted some of the issues and posed some thoughtful responses to common questions.
In our last post, we were talking about long-term care insurance. The insurance has an interesting, and perhaps undeserved, reputation, thanks to headlines about companies pulling out of the business and reports of policyholders’ denied or delayed claims. A recent article laid out some ways to ensure a long-term care insurance policy will actually cover the expenses associated with long-term care.
Long-term care insurance has received a lot of press coverage lately. Insurers are getting out of the market; companies holding on are asking for double-digit rate hikes. And as that big chunk of Americans, the Baby Boomers, reach retirement age, industry insiders were hoping more people would buy long-term care policies for themselves or for their Boomer parents. The market conditions have put a damper on those hopes. Market conditions may also be responsible for an increase in long-term care insurance claim denials.
In our last post, we were talking about the “file and use” and “use and file” rate approval rules. Insurance companies in Florida may elect to use either, but the industry complains that the “use and file” rule is meaningless, because the Office of Insurance Regulation rarely approves the rate change. Insurers must then reimburse their policyholders for premiums collected at the proposed, but disapproved rate.
