The insurance industry/market is getting scary. The latest hurricane in Florida brought out some interesting statistics. The Florida government-backed insurance carrier, Citizens Property (akin to TWIA in Texas) is getting tons more policies as insurance companies (Famers, Lexington and Bankers Insurance) pull out of the state.

I fear if a catastrophic hurricane hits Texas we might be looking at some of the same situations. Here are a few of the highlights from the story on Yahoo... https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/floridas-insurance-industry-flux-idalia-011406505.html

Quote:

---

A thinning insurance market that is beset by more regular hurricanes has caused insurance policy costs to skyrocket. An average home premium in Florida is about $6,000 per year, according to the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade organization. The U.S. average is about $1,700.

---

Quote:

---

Farmers Insurance announced just last month that it intends to leave Florida, affecting about 100,000 policy holders, and that it would not be writing new policies.

---

Quote:

---

In Florida, 16 severe storms or hurricanes since 2020 have caused $100 billion to $200 billion in damage. That has pushed many in the state to turn to Citizens Property Insurance Corp., the state-backed insurer of last resort, which has quickly become Florida's fastest-growing insurer.

The company now has more than 1.4 million policies, centered largely in southeast Florida, up precipitously from 500,000 in 2019. It now covers roughly 1 in 8 Florida households.

---

Quote:

---

As they (insurance companies) retreat and government is having an increasing role, that basically translates into taxpayers," Bach said. "So really, we're talking about a huge shift in risk-bearing from the private sector to the public, and it's a big deal

---

It is my understanding that some of the major companies have already quit writing policies in parts of north texas due to the constant drumbeat of hail claims. All evidence is anecdotal though I don't have a news article to point to.

jpd301 said:

---

It is my understanding that some of the major companies have already quit writing policies in parts of north texas due to the constant drumbeat of hail claims. All evidence is anecdotal though I don't have a news article to point to.

---

I haven't seen that. I just shopped around and every brand was offering. Most are at 2% hail/wind with depreciation. My commercial properties are at 5%.

jpd301 said:

---

It is my understanding that some of the major companies have already quit writing policies in parts of north texas due to the constant drumbeat of hail claims. All evidence is anecdotal though I don't have a news article to point to.

---

Some smaller carriers have, and others have made underwriting difficult to get a policy issued.

Of course higher deductibles and roof schedules are being used as well.

Article on Apple News. Seems insurance companies are writing out natural disasters now.

https://apple.news/AVXqEi89qR46Xv_xMLt61qA

mts6175 said:

---

Article on Apple News. Seems insurance companies are writing out natural disasters now.

https://apple.news/AVXqEi89qR46Xv_xMLt61qA

---

Many already did it years ago. TWIA and other state- run insurance are gonna get overwhelmed w policies

The other factor is that the cost of homes has gone up immensely in coastal areas. It's not 500 sq ft beach shacks it's 3000 sq ft vacation homes. All that equity appreciation owners have enjoyed means insurance premiums have to follow or we go broke.

But yeah broadly TWIA and their equivalent in Louisiana and Florida is going to be the only insurer in a 10-15 years. After Ida, we got a payout from our insurer and they went bankrupt shortly thereafter.

The politics of it will be interesting as you will essentially have places like Dallas and Austin subsidizing Houston and Galveston.

Dallas and Austin aren't subsidizing the coast. It might be the other way around. Those on the Texas coast are paying crazy high premiums and there hasn't been a catastrophe in many years.

However, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin have frequent hailstorms that cause billions in damage.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/weather/2023/07/11/hail-storm-in-texas-in-may-caused-more-than-1-billion-in-damage-federal-agency-says/?outputType=amp

"Hailstorms in Texas in May caused more than $1 billion in damage, federal agency says The storms on May 18-19 were among the 12 separate weather or climate related "billon-dollar" disasters detected as of June 2023."

TWIA only covers the coastal counties plus Harris. It pays no part of claims in the rest of the state. Right now it receives no public funds from the rest of the state. But note that Hurricane Ida alone caused more damage in 2021 in Louisiana than TWIA has paid out in its entire history. A similar storm hitting Beaumont or Galveston would require the state to step in and make TWIA whole or raise premiums in the coastal counties to astronomical levels to make up the deficit (like Florida currently). Remember when Ike hit, a lot of the coast was still covered by regular insurers not TWIA.

Basically you either make it extremely expensive to live on the coasts and stifle economic growth or the inland parts of the state will be subsidizing it.

"Remember when Ike hit, a lot of the coast was still covered by regular insurers not TWIA."

Not sure if that statement is true

TWIA losses for Ike were $2.5B out of a total of $9.8B in insurance losses. Allstate had about $1.5B and State Farm was over $1.5B for reference.

Basically repeat Ike now and the trust fund gets completely emptied out and then some. Does the state then raise premiums drastically (basically what's happening in LA and FL) and risk a death spiral as people drop coverage or move out of the coastal counties? Or do non coastal counties send some of their tax dollars to TWIA? The politics of either answer are not good.

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/05/03/inside-floridas-property-insurance-crisis?fbclid=IwAR0QPVddRUOPJ7LQGGG4Nl0VrJG-PhbUDkWLf7GIGmsz7E4o2BV8orno0gE

Hurricanes are not the cause of homeowner's insurance in Florida being so ****y. Florida makes up 8% of the claims nationwide with 6.3% of the nation's population, so yes they are over represented but not by an amount that is alarming or overly indicative of it being a bad investment for homeowners or insurance companies to do business there. The cause is that the state is responsible for 79% of the litigation brought against the insurance companies nationwide. Since 2013, insurance companies made $15 billion in payouts in Florida, but less than 10% of that went to policyholders. More than 70% of it went to attorneys. I would imagine the remaining percent mostly went to contractors.

SteveBott said:

---

The OB posters, and other climate deniers, will want me banned for this. But we are now seeing the true cost of climate change. The frequency and severity of storms are costing real money.

This is anecdotal and certainly not proof of anything. But in my first 26 years in my home I had one claim. I've had three in the last three years. Got dropped from Farmers after over ten years. I really can't blame them.

---

I believe the issue is multi fold. There is absolutely no one that denies the fact that the climate changes or is changing. It's. A fact of science. However, it's also a fact of science that variability in local weather spikes at variants times. I've been out of my degreed field for a long time now so I can't comment further. I can comment ont he fact that the other issue is that there are just a lot more people living in areas that are impacted by storms. Couple that with yet another factor of costs, well, it's a losing proposition for insurance companies.

I can attest, having worked with all manner of carriers, that having insurance is like playing black jack in Vegas. It's all fun and games and until you start beating the house. The house always wins and when they start losing, you get kicked out or they quit playing with you. That's what we're seeing.

As an aside, my thesis work in geology back in 2005 was supposed to be geared toward answering the question of "is our weather getting worse". My work focused on historic storm along the Texas coast. I used core samples and stratigraphic signatures to identify storm deposits. It was successful in identifying the deposits but it takes additional grad students decades to develop that work into the prehistoric time frames. The end goal using, foraminifera and strat sequences, was to identify aerial extend of prehistoric storms and tie that to climate data and then use all of that as an analog to current conditions to be able to say if storms are bigger, smaller or about the same as they've always been.

Anyway, enough nerd stuff.

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/05/03/inside-floridas-property-insurance-crisis?fbclid=IwAR0QPVddRUOPJ7LQGGG4Nl0VrJG-PhbUDkWLf7GIGmsz7E4o2BV8orno0gE

Hurricanes are not the cause of homeowner's insurance in Florida being so ****y. Florida makes up 8% of the claims nationwide with 6.3% of the nation's population, so yes they are over represented but not by an amount that is alarming or overly indicative of it being a bad investment for homeowners or insurance companies to do business there. The cause is that the state is responsible for 79% of the litigation brought against the insurance companies nationwide. Since 2013, insurance companies made $15 billion in payouts in Florida, but less than 10% of that went to policyholders. More than 70% of it went to attorneys. I would imagine the remaining percent mostly went to contractors.

---

I don't know where you got the 70% go to attorneys. Attorneys fee on plaintiff side is 40% in Texas. Leaving 60% to the property owners that can be paid to the contractors. I don't know what it is in Florida but I doubt it is 70%.

And those are the ones that are litigated.

Public Adjusters get 10%, and they often don't need litigation. so 90% would go to the insured.

And ones without public adjusters or attorneys they get 100%.

I am sure there is fraud there in Florida, just like everywhere else. But out and out fraud is relatively rare compared to honest claims with real damage. That is not the reason for the litigation, I disagree with the article. The article is pretty open, without any detail or real experience. Just citing a statistic with no explanation,

Hurricane claims are some of hte most complex claims in the industry, and adjusters often miss items. Especially inexperienced adjusters as there are 100 times the amount of claims than normal during a hurricane and they bring people in. Same with inexperienced engineers. So you have inexperienced adjusters and engineers handling the most complex claims there are, and they often don't konw what they are doing. Which leads to a low estimate, which then gets contested and gets litigated. Then can settle for 3 times or 10 times the original estimate because the adjuster didn't know what he/she was doing. But it isn't fraud, its just accurately writing the scope of the claim. I've seen both sides of that. Some overwrite claims for fee schedule.

Wyoming said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/05/03/inside-floridas-property-insurance-crisis?fbclid=IwAR0QPVddRUOPJ7LQGGG4Nl0VrJG-PhbUDkWLf7GIGmsz7E4o2BV8orno0gE

Hurricanes are not the cause of homeowner's insurance in Florida being so ****y. Florida makes up 8% of the claims nationwide with 6.3% of the nation's population, so yes they are over represented but not by an amount that is alarming or overly indicative of it being a bad investment for homeowners or insurance companies to do business there. The cause is that the state is responsible for 79% of the litigation brought against the insurance companies nationwide. Since 2013, insurance companies made $15 billion in payouts in Florida, but less than 10% of that went to policyholders. More than 70% of it went to attorneys. I would imagine the remaining percent mostly went to contractors.

---

I don't know where you got the 70% go to attorneys. Attorneys fee on plaintiff side is 40% in Texas. Leaving 60% to the property owners that can be paid to the contractors. I don't know what it is in Florida but I doubt it is 70%.

And those are the ones that are litigated.

Public Adjusters get 10%, and they often don't need litigation. so 90% would go to the insured.

And ones without public adjusters or attorneys they get 100%.

I am sure there is fraud there in Florida, just like everywhere else. But out and out fraud is relatively rare compared to honest claims with real damage. That is not the reason for the litigation, I disagree with the article. The article is pretty open, without any detail or real experience. Just citing a statistic with no explanation,

Hurricane claims are some of hte most complex claims in the industry, and adjusters often miss items. Especially inexperienced adjusters as there are 100 times the amount of claims than normal during a hurricane and they bring people in. Same with inexperienced engineers. So you have inexperienced adjusters and engineers handling the most complex claims there are, and they often don't konw what they are doing. Which leads to a low estimate, which then gets contested and gets litigated. Then can settle for 3 times or 10 times the original estimate because the adjuster didn't know what he/she was doing. But it isn't fraud, it's just accurately writing the scope of the claim. I've seen both sides of that. Some overwrite claims for fee schedule.

---

I got the 70% goes to attorneys from the link I posted. I never said that is the attorneys' fee, it's from an Assignment of benefits where the payment to the homeowner is often capped, and not percentage based. If you can produce numbers that dispute the $15 billion paid in Florida over that last decade with 70% going to attorneys I'd be happy to see it. Again, 79% of claims that go to litigation over homeowners insurance come from Florida which makes up less than 7% of the nations population, and only 8% of claims. Writing that off as "hurricanes are complicated" is choosing to be empirically ignorant here, as that insane delta shouldn't simply be accounted for by poor estimates.

No idea why you just made all the adjusters and "engineers" handling homeowners insurance and damage claims inexperienced in your example.

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

Wyoming said:

---

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2022/05/03/inside-floridas-property-insurance-crisis?fbclid=IwAR0QPVddRUOPJ7LQGGG4Nl0VrJG-PhbUDkWLf7GIGmsz7E4o2BV8orno0gE

Hurricanes are not the cause of homeowner's insurance in Florida being so ****y. Florida makes up 8% of the claims nationwide with 6.3% of the nation's population, so yes they are over represented but not by an amount that is alarming or overly indicative of it being a bad investment for homeowners or insurance companies to do business there. The cause is that the state is responsible for 79% of the litigation brought against the insurance companies nationwide. Since 2013, insurance companies made $15 billion in payouts in Florida, but less than 10% of that went to policyholders. More than 70% of it went to attorneys. I would imagine the remaining percent mostly went to contractors.

---

I don't know where you got the 70% go to attorneys. Attorneys fee on plaintiff side is 40% in Texas. Leaving 60% to the property owners that can be paid to the contractors. I don't know what it is in Florida but I doubt it is 70%.

And those are the ones that are litigated.

Public Adjusters get 10%, and they often don't need litigation. so 90% would go to the insured.

And ones without public adjusters or attorneys they get 100%.

I am sure there is fraud there in Florida, just like everywhere else. But out and out fraud is relatively rare compared to honest claims with real damage. That is not the reason for the litigation, I disagree with the article. The article is pretty open, without any detail or real experience. Just citing a statistic with no explanation,

Hurricane claims are some of hte most complex claims in the industry, and adjusters often miss items. Especially inexperienced adjusters as there are 100 times the amount of claims than normal during a hurricane and they bring people in. Same with inexperienced engineers. So you have inexperienced adjusters and engineers handling the most complex claims there are, and they often don't konw what they are doing. Which leads to a low estimate, which then gets contested and gets litigated. Then can settle for 3 times or 10 times the original estimate because the adjuster didn't know what he/she was doing. But it isn't fraud, it's just accurately writing the scope of the claim. I've seen both sides of that. Some overwrite claims for fee schedule.

---

I got the 70% goes to attorneys from the link I posted. I never said that is the attorneys' fee, it's from an Assignment of benefits where the payment to the homeowner is often capped, and not percentage based. If you can produce numbers that dispute the $15 billion paid in Florida over that last decade with 70% going to attorneys I'd be happy to see it. Again, 79% of claims that go to litigation over homeowners insurance come from Florida which makes up less than 7% of the nations population, and only 8% of claims. Writing that off as "hurricanes are complicated" is choosing to be empirically ignorant here, as that insane delta shouldn't simply be accounted for by poor estimates.

No idea why you just made all the adjusters and "engineers" handling homeowners insurance and damage claims inexperienced in your example.

---

Because I've handled thousands of claims, worked probably a dozen hurricanes in Louisiana and Texas. I didn't say all of hte engineers and adjusters, but there is a high number of them. I've seen adjusting firms hire adjusters overnight, because there existing staff doesn't have the capacity. Its not all going to attorneys, that is just not how it works, but yes attorneys get a good cut, but not 79%. that is not how the fee schedule works. Nah man, not ignorant at all, I just have 20 years of experience in this and have had numerous engineers with decades of experience work for me. I've been the third engineer hired by carriers on claims in the past, and almost always find stuff the previous engineers missed. You don't know what you are talking about, just likely reading about it in articles and making your own conclusions, but you have no experience in this.

This is getting tiresome, I habe been trying to explain something to you and help you but you are stubborn and don't have a clue. For me it is like debating differential equations with someone that barely knows basic arithmetic.

The claims with several million coverage almost all get litigated. That doesn't mean all or 70 percent goes to attorneys. I have inspected apartment complexes that have gone from 2 million originally to 9 million settlement. Condo complexes with an original estimate of 14,000 that settled for 1.8 million. And it was a legit 1.4 million. 70 percent doesn't go to attorneys. If I would have come in initially, I would have had the 1.4 million estimate. So if you had someone That knows what they are doing originally, you don't get the delta of 1.8 million final from the 14,000 initial.

It maybe 8 percent of claims in Florida, But the payouts are significantly higher for hurricanes. A hail claim might be 20k, but a hurricane claim can easily be several million on the same property. I've worked on hotels with multiple properties settle for 30 or 40 million from hurricanes, If you just replaced the roofs from a hail claim it might be a coup,e of million at the most on those 30 or 40 million dollar hurricane claims.
Litigation and lawyer fees are higher in Florida, and in my experience, the largest part of that is due to an inaccurate initial scope of repair. And hurricane and tornadoes are the hardest claims to assess.

DUDE FOR THE 4TH TIME, I DIDN'T MAKE UP THAT 70% TO ATTORNEYS STAT. If you can dispute it with anything other than anecdotes from your experience in other states go for it. Otherwise I don't care at all that you think it's wrong.

I don't think I can put it in more straightforward terms than I have that these huge attorney payouts that are costing in the billions over the last decade, aren't direct proportional cuts of the total payouts either, but here I am repeating myself because you keep insisting attorney fees aren't 70% of the settled/ruled payout… despite no claim being made otherwise. More than 70% of the payout amounts going to attorneys is mostly due to AOBs (something that systemically appears to be unique to Florida), and settlement/ruling costs paying multipliers of attorneys' fees (unsure if unique to Florida).

I agree this is getting tiresome. This has been a weird interaction considering you are responding to statistics with nothing of actual substance, yet are insisting you're right.

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

DUDE FOR THE 4TH TIME, I DIDN'T MAKE UP THAT 70% TO ATTORNEYS STAT. If you can dispute it with anything other than anecdotes from your experience in other states go for it. Otherwise I don't care at all that you think it's wrong.

I don't think I can put it in more straightforward terms than I have that these huge attorney payouts that are costing in the billions over the last decade, aren't direct proportional cuts of the total payouts either, but here I am repeating myself because you keep insisting attorney fees aren't 70% of the settled/ruled payout… despite no claim being made otherwise. More than 70% of the payout amounts going to attorneys is mostly due to AOBs (something that systemically appears to be unique to Florida), and settlement/ruling costs paying multipliers of attorneys' fees (unsure if unique to Florida).

I agree this is getting tiresome. This has been a weird interaction considering you are responding to statistics with nothing of actual substance, yet are insisting you're right.

---

Dude? LOL. Ok dude. You just don't know what you are talking about. You are a fool on this, a stubborn one though.

Your 70% number is based on what Meghna Chakrabarti said, who is a journalist, and she even says part of her research started with a roof she saw on Facebook LOL. So right of the bat I know she is a clown and a dumb(ss on this.

This is what this journalist Meghna Chakrabarti that you are basing as your supposed facts:

"In Florida, lawyers often sue insurance companies for much more than the actual repair costs. And because of that AOB, they get to collect the extra cash. In fact, since 2013, insurance companies made $15 billion in payouts in Florida, but less than 10% of that went to policyholders. More than 70% of it went to attorneys. What's more, the Sunshine State is a standout nationwide. More than 75%, three quarters of all property insurance litigation in the entire country originates in Florida."

There is so much BS in that statement and she is both misleading and doesn't know what she is talking about. Again, she is a journalist, who some of her research is based off a roof she saw on facebook LOL. How does she know what the actual repair costs are? Just a false and misleading and huge assumption. Often they do, but she is assuming that this is all fraud, which is a crazy half baked dumb*ss assumption. Some of it is yes, but the vast majority isn't. Less than 10% may have went to policyholders initially, which is likely on some claims. Often, the PA or attorneys handle the file right off the bat so there is no payment going to the insured initially. Then it went to litigation, the attorneys are paid, but there are things called estimates of damages, that the awards are based on. The plaintiffs have their estimates, the carrier have theirs. So lets say the insured was paid 20,000 initially, then it was settled for 180,000. 180,000 is paid to the attorneys, but the insured gets what is owed to them based on the agreed to estimate minus attorney fees.

Also in your article, it is stated ""Florida has 8% of the claims and 79% of the litigation, so there's something very, very wrong with that." Well no sh*t is my response and Ian was one of hte worst hurricanes I have seen. And because Hurricane claims are complex as I described in previous posts. You have a hail claim, and all you have to contest is the roof. Big deal. You have a hurricane, and you are contesting maybe up to policy limits. Plus her data is based on the last two years, which was Ian. That excludes Harvey, Katrina, Maria, Sandy, and on and on because Ian hit in 2022. How convenient to pull the last 2 years data for shock value as that is when Ian hit Florida and compare it to the rest of the country.

You are simple and naive on this topic, and you don't know anything about this so you can't even question what a journalist that is interviewing another half-baked journalist is spilling to you.

I guess I'm a client denier but a weather believer.

Same thing is going on in California. Insurance market is definitely wobbly for us end of line consumers, especially lately.

Quick google search for the journalist you claim is incapable of knowing anything on the subject since she isn't a superstar claims handler like yourself shows she has a BS in Civil & Environmental Engineering from Oregon State, an MS in Environmental Science and Risk Management from Harvard, and an MBA from Boston University. Does this mean she knows a lot about property owner's insurance claims? No, not automatically, but she didn't go get a journalism degree from a liberal arts college in the NE you've never heard of that has 700 students like you seem to think she did.

I don't see anywhere in the link I posted where Chakrabarti claims to have researched on Facebook. The only mention of Facebook I see is when she says that's how the homeowner found the roofing company they tried to use. Doesn't seem so bad to me. She certainly doesn't claim to have aggregated the data based on Facebook posts, which would be a problem.

Here is a Florida Senator giving the same 70% payout to attorneys statistic:
https://www.flgov.com/2021/06/11/governor-desantis-signs-legislation-to-continue-insurance-reform-in-florida/
State Rep saying the same:
https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2021/06/15/fla-gets-updated-property-insurance-law/?slreturn=20230805223514
Same stat given that sites the source as the Insurance Information Institute:
https://www.gulfshorebusiness.com/attempts-to-fix-floridas-failing-property-insurance-market/

It's worth noting in that last link it says that was from 2013-2020. No idea what you're talking about when you say she used 2 years of data, I can't seem to find that either. I doubt it's an original stat from Chakrabarti, not sure why that was assumed by you.

Quote:

---

So lets say the insured was paid 20,000 initially, then it was settled for 180,000. 180,000 is paid to the attorneys, but the insured gets what is owed to them based on the agreed to estimate minus attorney fees.

---

Ummm… is this not in agreement with me over what we've been arguing about the whole time? Ultimate payout breakdown of 70% to the attorneys and 10% to the home owners?

Finally, I am naive on this topic, that's why I'm relying on statistics I have found. Maybe being naive is more useful than your hubris that might be keeping you from realizing you might not have all the answers. Otherwise it sounds like there's a lot of money to be made on either the insurers' or attorneys' sides for repair estimates in Florida since they're apparently so poor at their jobs that there's a discrepancy to the degree of the 8% of claims to 79% of litigation in the US.

She is the Editor of a journalism company. Regardless of her degrees, she is a journalist, which actually makes me question her intelligence. Also, her degrees actually make me think even less of her with regards to this industry. It only shows how far removed from this industry she is. The people most respected in this industry are those with the most experience and the most knowledge in this industry, and the ones I can think of don't have a college education.

The 70% is a number of things, but I can only tell you for the last time, is that a lot of it is because Florida has a ton of hurricane claims. Just about half of the hurricanes that have hit the US has hit Florida. Earlier in the article, she talked about the last two years was what one of her stats was based on. Lets say it is 2013-2020, well that time period still includes Irma (Cat 4), Micheal (Cat 5), Ian (Cat 4), Idalia (Cat 3), Sally (Cat 2), and others. So even with your expanded data set, the stats are still skewed towards a shock value stat for Florida. How many hurricanes did Iowa get during that time period?: New York? South Carolina? etc.. Like I said, comparing it to the rest of hte country is ridiculous like I stated so many times before, as hurricanes are always much more complex.

Your quote "Ummm… is this not in agreement with me over what we've been arguing about the whole time? Ultimate payout breakdown of 70% to the attorneys and 10% to the home owners?"

No kid, lol. That is not how it works. You are funny and really like a 3 year old to take that at face value. Let's say 70% goes to the attorneys at the end, well they still have to pay the insureds, and consultants like myself. They will have engineers, building consultants, mold consultants, etc.., and if they don't pay us, we will have collections groups hounding them every day. They also have to still pay the insureds (homeowners), as the estimates are what the awards are based on. They don't get to keep it, and that is just really naive of you, and shows you really don't have a clue.

Yes, you are right there, there is a lot of money to be made in Florida. I never said the attorneys were not getting rich. They are getting filthy. But those stats are so far off and skewed for shock value it is ridiculous. Florida is a loser on insurance mostly because they are a hurricane magnet. Yes attorneys abuse the system too, but your stats are simply misleading you, and you need to learn to know when something stinks. When a stat you are reading stinks, and you don't have a clue about that.

So are you now saying that 70% did get paid to the attorneys, but that 70% is made up of payments they then use to pay the consultants? If yes, then that is different than your initial replies to me as you said:

Quote:

---

I don't know where you got the 70% go to attorneys. Attorneys fee on plaintiff side is 40% in Texas. Leaving 60% to the property owners that can be paid to the contractors. I don't know what it is in Florida but I doubt it is 70%. Public Adjusters get 10%, and they often don't need litigation. so 90% would go to the insured.

---

but it sounds like you have come around at least a little.

Are you still saying it is wrong that only 10% was paid out to the property owners since you think more was paid to them from the attorneys 70% cut post settlement?

It's worth noting that a bill was passed just over a year ago in Florida that bars assignees of benefits from collecting attorney fees, prohibits assignment of attorney fees other than to a named insured person or a named beneficiary under the policy, and declares attorney fee multipliers may only be awarded under rare and exceptional circumstances. Sounds like if roughly the same hurricane count trend continues and insurance prices either continue to increase, or they decrease we'll have an answer on the causes.

Don't know why you think using that data (2013-2020) set is so nit-picky. When you were wrong and thought they used the last 2 years you complained about that too. And in your first post of this thread you say how the last few decades in Florida haven't been very significant in regards to number of hurricanes. Would the last decade of claims not be what is driving up the rates and causing insurance companies to go solvent? Im not saying even older ones have 0 effect, but how far back should they look at insurance payouts for a correlation to current insurance rates?

You called me a 3 year old and a kid, as well as simple and naive on another post yet you got multiple details wrong from the link (claim that research was done on facebook and only for 2 years, things you made a big deal about). Some classy personal insults that I find ironic.

Editing to add that holy **** man, your first paragraph on your most recent response should be pretty eye opening as that might be one of the great examples of absurd internet argument responses. I don't really care at all what your opinion of that female journalist is, hence why I wasn't going to respond to it originally. But you made fun of her for being a journalist and basically saying there's no way she has any ability to collect or analyze data because of it, then to find out she actually has a pretty impressive STEM background, and then claim that makes you respect her LESS is hilarious and a textbook example of moving the goal posts and I would hope it's a lie.

SteveBott said:

---

The OB posters, and other climate deniers, will want me banned for this. But we are now seeing the true cost of climate change. The frequency and severity of storms are costing real money.

This is anecdotal and certainly not proof of anything. But in my first 26 years in my home I had one claim. I've had three in the last three years. Got dropped from Farmers after over ten years. I really can't blame them.

---

Yeah some homeowners do things like parking a classic vehicle under a Bradford pear tree.
Did that go on your homeowners policy? I wouldn't put that one on climate change.
And how do you think your claims are caused by climate change?

Aggie_Boomin 21 said:

---

So are you now saying that 70% did get paid to the attorneys, but that 70% is made up of payments they then use to pay the consultants? If yes, then that is different than your initial replies to me as you said:

Quote:

---

I don't know where you got the 70% go to attorneys. Attorneys fee on plaintiff side is 40% in Texas. Leaving 60% to the property owners that can be paid to the contractors. I don't know what it is in Florida but I doubt it is 70%. Public Adjusters get 10%, and they often don't need litigation. so 90% would go to the insured.

---

but it sounds like you have come around at least a little.

Are you still saying it is wrong that only 10% was paid out to the property owners since you think more was paid to them from the attorneys 70% cut post settlement?

It's worth noting that a bill was passed just over a year ago in Florida that bars assignees of benefits from collecting attorney fees, prohibits assignment of attorney fees other than to a named insured person or a named beneficiary under the policy, and declares attorney fee multipliers may only be awarded under rare and exceptional circumstances. Sounds like if roughly the same hurricane count trend continues and insurance prices either continue to increase, or they decrease we'll have an answer on the causes.

Don't know why you think using that data (2013-2020) set is so nit-picky. When you were wrong and thought they used the last 2 years you complained about that too. And in your first post of this thread you say how the last few decades in Florida haven't been very significant in regards to number of hurricanes. Would the last decade of claims not be what is driving up the rates and causing insurance companies to go solvent? Im not saying even older ones have 0 effect, but how far back should they look at insurance payouts for a correlation to current insurance rates?

You called me a 3 year old and a kid, as well as simple and naive on another post yet you got multiple details wrong from the link (claim that research was done on facebook and only for 2 years, things you made a big deal about). Some classy personal insults that I find ironic.

Editing to add that holy **** man, your first paragraph on your most recent response should be pretty eye opening as that might be one of the great examples of absurd internet argument responses. I don't really care at all what your opinion of that female journalist is, hence why I wasn't going to respond to it originally. But you made fun of her for being a journalist and basically saying there's no way she has any ability to collect or analyze data because of it, then to find out she actually has a pretty impressive STEM background, and then claim that makes you respect her LESS is hilarious and a textbook example of moving the goal posts and I would hope it's a lie.

---

That's your problem on the details from the article. You rely purely on statistics without having a day of real world experience in this. I tried to explain to you how it works, as I have actually gone through this several times, but you are incorrigible, and know better. Regardless, Florida still gets half the hurricanes to hit the US, and the 1800's was regarding a different point as there were more hurricanes back then.

Also never said she couldn't analyze data. And it doesn't matter what your STEM background is WITHIN THIS INDUSTRY. I went to A&M, have a post-graduate degree, and also an MBA from a big name like her although not Harvard. It doesn't matter in this industry and I the only thing that got me where I am is 16 hour days, years of them. Like I said, the people that are most respected in this industry many don't have college degrees.