|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Unfortunately, I have bad news for Floridians. Our elected officials have once again failed us. Last week, politicians went back to Tallahassee for another Special Session to try to “solve” one of the biggest crises our state faces: property insurance costs. In classic fashion, consumers will bear the burden of Tallahassee’s so-called “reforms.” Let me be very clear, this crisis is complex. There is no magic formula to fix the problems that Florida faces with property insurance. However, three days in May will not fix these problems. Over those three days, our legislature decided that instead of providing some immediate relief to Floridians, the insurance carriers deserved more attention and protection.
Governor Ron DeSantis said in a statement that the property insurance bill, SB 2D, was “the most significant reforms to Florida’s home owners insurance market in a generation.” This is laughable. The only thing that was significant was that no experts testified, no data was provided, and no amendments were passed during this “special” session. To add insult to injury, the Tampa Bay Times reported last week that Florida’s Department of Financial Services does a “financial autopsy” on every insurance company that fails in Florida.” Unfortunately, these autopsies are not automatically provided to lawmakers or the Office of Insurance Regulation. So, our legislature is not even studying what has gone wrong in the past before passing “significant” reforms. Folks, this bill was signed, sealed, and delivered before legislatures even took their seats in Tallahassee.
Here is what came out of the special session: SB 2D contains no guarantees that consumers will see any decrease in their premiums now or in the future. Instead, what we will see is insurance companies getting an increase of $2 billion in additional reinsurance protections with state taxpayer money; insurance companies getting more protections from insurers suing over claim disputes and limiting money going to attorneys’ fees or costs for the litigation; much needed condo reform (a bright spot); and some roofing protections for consumers so they will not be automatically denied coverage based on the age of the roof. While these may appear to address the crisis and potentially attract more insurance carriers into the state, there is no guarantee that it will actually help reduce premiums for consumers. The insurance companies will now have greater protection through the reinsurance fund and less exposure to attorneys’ fees under certain circumstances. The insurance companies came out on top.
As I said before, there is no magic formula for such a complex issue like what Florida faces in terms of property insurance costs. However, here is some food for thought. First, lets make property insurance reform a top priority on a yearly legislative basis. Florida battles hurricanes on a yearly basis—the legislature should also address our insurance market on a yearly basis. Second, the Florida Department of Financial Services autopsies of failed insurance carriers should be automatically provided to OIR and lawmakers. This information can be used to learn what does and does not work for the consumers and the insurance carriers. Finally, if taxpayer money is going to provide additional funding to entice insurance carriers to come back to Florida through the reinsurance market, why not put in place some limits on annual premium hikes. Floridians deserve concrete protections from rising insurance premiums.
Every year, Floridians face the potential of a hurricane but recently, we have had to deal with the storm and damage coming out of Tallahassee. Let’s change that.
Comments are closed.