TOP

Plugging a Gap in Sinkhole Coverage

Wall Street Journal
March 30, 2011
By LESLIE SCISM

As more Florida homeowners seek insurance payments for sinkhole problems, state lawmakers are considering measures to curb dubious claims and try to ensure that policy proceeds are used to repair properties.

‘There’s a bigger problem than sinkholes—people taking advantage of the situation,’ said Timothy Abbey of Safety Harbor, Fla.

State and county authorities are increasingly concerned that a large portion of homeowners pursuing sinkhole claims are using insurance proceeds to pay off mortgages, rather than make repairs. Then, authorities say, some homeowners are successfully getting their property appraised at a lower value due to the unrepaired damage, hurting neighborhood prices and tax bases.

They also fear sinkhole claims, up sharply since 2006, may lead to rate increases for homeowners broadly and could weaken some small insurers.

The average closed sinkhole claim in Florida tops $140,000, according to a November report by regulators. Data compiled by regulators and county tax authorities indicate less than half the $1.4 billion paid out by insurers over the past five years has been used to plug sinkholes or shore up foundations.

Sinkholes are depressions in the land surface that can undermine a house’s stability. Florida, with large amounts of underground limestone that can dissolve, is vulnerable to the problem. Most of the claims hitting insurers are tied to cracks in walls and ceilings, pointed to as evidence of problems underground, according to regulators.

While some homeowners have serious problems, insurers say current laws favor consumers in the claims-settlement process and insurers can be stuck paying questionable claims if their engineers can’t rule out a sinkhole as the cause of the cracks.

Under legislation being debated in the state legislature, most homeowners would be required to use policy proceeds to repair their property. The legislation also would define what constitutes sinkhole damage, such as requiring some measurable amount of foundation movement.

Regulators contend a driving force for the significant increase in sinkhole claims is that current law allows policyholders to use the proceeds to pay off their mortgage and keep what is left.
They also blame what they call unscrupulous public adjusters, who earn commissions helping consumers obtain insurance payments, saying they have aggressively filed sinkhole claims in the absence of a major hurricane since 2005 to provide business.

Adjusters respond that the rise in claims is largely the result of overdevelopment that has left the ground susceptible to sinkholes. They say some homeowners are trying to protect themselves in case of coverage cutbacks.

A top official in one of the counties hardest hit by sinkhole claims has told state law makers that about 40% of properties with confirmed sinkholes are repaired. County tax authorities hear from these homeowners because many who get insurance payments are able to obtain reductions of up to 50% in the assessed value of their property on the basis of the unrepaired problems, authorities say.

“The general public is now very quick to have the problem diagnosed,” Hernando County official Alvin Mazourek said in a letter to lawmakers last fall. But, he says, the problem “more often than not, goes completely unrepaired.” The majority of sinkholes reported to his office have caused minor structural distress, he said.

As property valuations are reduced, local tax bases are eroded, he said, leading to a possible “financial catastrophe, should the rate of sinkhole claims continue to flood in.”

In a survey of insurers last year, Florida’s Office of Insurance Regulation found that as few as 20% of claimants had repaired their properties.

Sinkhole claims have jumped from 2,360 in 2006 to more than 7,200 in 2009 and about 6,700 through late summer 2010, for a total of nearly 25,000 since 2006, the survey found.

There also has been legislative debate about eliminating a requirement that insurers sell broad sinkhole coverage that allows crack-type claims to be filed. Instead, insurers would be obligated to offer coverage for just “catastrophic” sinkhole problems—the actual collapse of a home into a hole. Those instances are rare.

While the ultimate shape of any legislation remains unclear, some political observers give an industry-backed bill a good chance of passage in a Republican-controlled legislature considered more business-friendly since last November’s election, and with a new business-friendly governor, Rick Scott, also a Republican.

As insurers have sought rate increases over the past year tied to escalating sinkhole costs and regulators have warned of possible insolvencies of some small insurers, some consumers have urged lawmakers to make changes.

“There’s a bigger problem than sinkholes—people taking advantage of the situation,” says Timothy Abbey, a long-time resident and owner of a staffing firm in Safety Harbor, near Tampa, who was among consumers testifying at a February hearing in favor of industry-backed legislation.

Others are concerned the proposal to let insurers stop providing broad sinkhole coverage is too favorable to the industry. They fear insurers would exit the line of business, even as mortgage lenders would still require the coverage, forcing homeowners to buy it through their lenders at possibly steeper prices.

Julia Stack, a firefighter in Spring Hill who received more than $100,000 in insurance proceeds last year tied to cracking of her pool deck and garage floor, says she would welcome the laws “getting a little tougher.” An engineering firm hired by the insurer concluded the cracks were “the result of a combination of factors, including possible sinkhole activity,” according to a public copy of the report.

She says she “can rest my head on my pillow” at night feeling that her family’s claim was legitimate. She and her husband decided to use the insurance money to pay off the mortgage. Remediation efforts would have eaten up all the proceeds, with no certainty the problem would be fixed, she says.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703461504576231014107922744.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Read More
TOP

Bill allowing hefty Citizens insurance rate hikes clears first panel

SunSentinel.com
by Julie Patel
March 29, 2011

A bill that would raise Citizens Property Insurance policyholders’ premiums by up to 25 percent a year and make many policyholders ineligible for coverage was approved by a close 6 to 4 vote in the Senate’s insurance committee today.

Sen. Alan Hays, R-Umatilla, said his bill, SB 1714 is aimed to shrink state-backed Citizens, Florida’s largest residential insurance provider with 1.3 million policies, even the playing for private insurers. The bill will go to one ore two committees before it can be taken up for a full Senate vote.

The bill, and its House companion, HB 1243, would also bar policies for homeowners who find coverage elsewhere for a price that’s up to 25 percent more; require Citizens to drop policies covering homes that cost at least $500,000; prevent Citizens policyholders from hiring public insurance adjusters to represent them in claims disputes; and require Citizens to hire an outside consultant to analyze whether to have more of its work outsourced.

Gwen Margolis, D-Miami, said people who will be no longer be eligible for coverage with Citizens will find it even harder to sell their homes, which could worsen economic problems in the state.

“At what point do we recognize that there are people out there that are struggling that can no longer afford [it]?” said Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, who led the charge against the bill. He said Floridians who elected Republicans do not expect legislators to raise their taxes, rates or premiums. “Every time I turn around we see another rate increase…Give these people some relief.”

Hays said his bill would help reduce fees charged to the 85 percent of Florida policyholders who don’t have Citizens but have to help offset the insurer’s deficits from the 2005 hurricanes. “We call it an assessment but that’s just a big long word for tax,” he said.

J.D. Alexander, R-Lake Wales, said auto insurance policyholders would also be subject to paying fees. He said a constituent told him, “I can’t even afford a house. Why do I have to pay this assessment?”

South Florida lawmakers that voted against the bill are Sens. Margolis, Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, and Eleanor Sobel, D-Hollywood. Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, voted for it, Sen. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, was not at the meeting.

To weigh in, find your legislators and contact information for them online.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-03-29/business/sfl-citizens-insurance-rate-hikes-link-032911_1_citizens-property-insurance-insurance-committee-today-premiums

Read More
TOP

Killing hurricane tax better for Floridians

Orlando Sentinel
by Barney Bishop
March 29, 2011

Our elected officials have weeks left this session to begin the process of reforming our state’s property-insurance market. Working with other groups, Associated Industries of Florida has urged the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott to eliminate the hurricane tax to better protect all Floridians.

Even as a landlocked city, Orlando residents are threatened and burdened with paying hurricane taxes, which in effect subsidize many of our state’s most fortunate — homeowners living on the coast and those with vacation homes. With 1.2 million policies, Citizens Property Insurance Corp. could go broke if a storm were to hit Florida.

Also, the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, on which both Citizens and Florida’s private insurers currently depend, faces the prospect of exhausting its own resources. It could be required to seek mammoth new bond sales in a weak bond market and, if successful, would pay off the bonds through additional hurricane taxes on all statewide policy holders.

Although no storms hit Florida last hurricane season, we’re still paying for the 2004 and 2005 storms because of the debt burden designed into the structure of Citizens and the CAT Fund. Should a storm make landfall on our coast this year, all Floridians would be forced to pay to fund the overexposed Citizens and CAT Fund.

I implore you to contact your elected officials and tell them how important it is to reduce the role of Citizens and the CAT Fund in our private market to alleviate the risk associated with these government entities.

Barney T. Bishop III President, CEO, Associated Industries of Florida

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-scott-powers-closet-letters-03220110328,0,529976.story

Read More
TOP

Florida Homeowners Insurers Seek ‘Flex-Rating’ Up to 15%

Insurance Journal
March 24, 2011

Florida lawmakers are considering giving homeowners insurers more flexibility to raise rates.

The Florida Senate and Banking Insurance Committee recently approved a bill that would give homeowners insurers some latitude, allowing them to raise their rates without first getting approval from the state insurance department. The bill would let insurers increase their rates by a statewide average 15 percent above their current rate. The bill caps increases on individually policyholders so that their rates are no higher than twice the statewide average.

The role of the Office of Insurance Regulation (OIR) would be limited to reviewing the rates to see if they are inadequate or discriminatory.

Under current law, every property insurer in the state must make an annual rate filing with the OIR, which may either approve or disapprove the rates to ensure that they are not excessive, inadequate or unfairly discriminatory. Although lawmakers in recent years have streamlined the process, it can still take months to resolve the filings, especially if they are disputed.

Senator Alan Hays, who sponsored the bill, said that while the latest bill is no “magic-bullet,” it would bring more latitude to the market. “This is an issue of consumer choice that hopefully leads to a more competitive market,” he said.

Other lawmakers, however, are not so accepting of his view. Senator Eleanor Sobel (D-Hollywood) cast the bill as a “statewide experiment” that could leave residents confused over whether a rate is fair or not.

The debate over the measure amounted to a classic seminar on the virtues of free market capitalism as opposed to the need for state regulation over an industry defined by profit. In a contentious debate, supporters of the bill cast it as a means to attract more capital to the state, hopefully resulting in lower rate hikes, while critics cast the bill as an automatic annual cost increase to policyholders.

Mark Delegal, representing State Farm Insurance Co., spoke in favor of the bill and rebutted charges that the alternative rate-making process would lead to a market out-of-control. “To say this is wide-open deregulation is wrong,” he said. “Right now there is no cap on what you can ask. If you decide to take this fork in the road you are imposing your own limits.”

Others, however, said there is no justification for changing the current rate making process. Jeffrey Farmer, speaking for the trial lawyers’ Florida Justice Association, warned lawmakers they are being hoodwinked by an industry that hasn’t suffered any significant losses in five years. “Sometimes, they have to pay claims,” he said.

Complicating the market equation is the state-backed insurer Citizens’ Property Insurance Corp. In 2009, lawmakers capped Citizens’ rates so they could only rise by 10 percent annually. If a significant portion of the industry institutes rate hikes it could lead to an exodus from the private market to the Citizens, which already has 1.3 million policyholders. Some lawmakers are hoping that they can lessen the chance of more policies going into Citizens by requiring Citizens policyholders to sign-off on a form indicating they understand the potential assessments and surcharges they could face in the event of a deficit. Citizens’ policyholders are on the hook for a surcharge of up to 15 percent and an emergency assessment of up to 10 percent.

Senator Gwen Margolis (D-Miami) said Citizens is already a big enough problem and the prospect of higher rates in a state whose economy was dependent on growth is enough to lose her support for the bill. “I am very concerned that people are no longer coming to Florida anymore because it’s too expensive,” she said.

The bill would also require insurers to accept more liability and beef-up their ability to pay claims. Insurers would not be allowed to buy temporary increased reinsurance coverage from the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and they would have to have the financial backing to cover a 100-year probable maximum loss by January 2015.

On a parting note, Hays urged lawmakers to once again take up the mantel of supporting a more open market. “This is the land of the free, the home of the brave, where we have freedom of choice,” said Hays. “It is an insult to consumers of this state to say you can’t have the choice under this bill.”

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2011/03/24/191441.htm

Read More
TOP

Replacement Cost Coverage “No Holdback” In Florida Contributes To State’s Property Insurance Imbalance

Insurance Information Institute
by Lynne McChristian
March 23, 2011

INSURANCE INFORMATION INSTITUTE
Florida Press Office: (813) 480-6446, lynnem@iii.org
New York Press Office: (212) 346-5500, media@iii.org

TAMPA, FL, March 23, 2011 — With property insurance, things are done differently in Florida—and one of those differences is being highlighted by the current legislative debate over how insurers are directed to pay claims to policyholders who purchase replacement cost coverage.

Florida appears to be the only state that requires insurers to pay upfront for replacement cost coverage, while other states allow insurers to hold back a portion of the claim until property actually is repaired or replaced. This difference is causing the average loss per policy to rise and is a contributing factor to rising property insurance costs, according to the Insurance Information Institute.

Replacement cost coverage has historically been priced to match payouts to receipts. This is a basic insurance principle of indemnity, which is defined as financial compensation sufficient to put a policyholder back in the same financial position as before the loss. Ignoring that principle is costing all Floridians more money for property insurance because it is driving up the average cost of a claim. For example, with sinkhole claims, insurers are paying the full limits of the policy, rather than only for necessary repairs, which is causing total claims payouts for sinkholes to exceed the premiums being collected for the coverage.

“Insurers establish their premiums by reviewing their loss history, and when the average cost of claims keeps rising, then rates have to rise to make sure enough money is on hand to follow that trend,” said Lynne McChristian, Florida representative for the I.I.I.

Ignoring the principle of indemnity means that people are being compensated for an amount exceeding their economic loss. This is further compounded in Florida because current law does not require policyholders to use their claims check for its intended purpose. The result is many damaged homes are not being repaired, according to property appraisers in “sinkhole alley” counties.

Outside of Florida, insurers pay actual cash value on a claim, which takes depreciation into account, and then pay the full amount when repairs or rebuilding occur or when a policyholder turns in receipts for replacing possessions that were damaged, destroyed or stolen. That is the way it worked in Florida until four hurricanes hit in 2005. That year, the Florida Legislature responded to public concerns over claim payment delays by passing a law to have insurers pay full replacement cost benefits upfront to policyholders who purchased such coverage. But because the law did not require people to repair their property, some did not.

“Redefining how replacement cost coverage is paid may have sounded like a good idea, but it has the unintended consequence of driving up the cost of insurance,” said McChristian.

In every other state, except Florida, people have two options when it comes to insuring their property and possessions. They can purchase coverage for:

Actual cash value which pays to replace a home or possessions, minus a deduction for depreciation, or

Replacement cost coverage which pays the cost of rebuilding or repairing a home or replacing possessions without a deduction for depreciation.

FOR GENERAL INFORMATION INSURANCE IN FLORIDA: www.insuringflorida.org

THE I.I.I. IS A NONPROFIT, COMMUNICATIONS ORGANIZATION SUPPORTED BY THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
Insurance Information Institute, 4775 E. Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617, (813) 480-6446 | www.insuringflorida.org | www.iii.org

http://www.insuringflorida.org/press_releases/replacement-cost-coverage-no-holdback-in-florida-contributes-to-states-property-insurance-imbalance.html

Read More
TOP

Insurance reform benefits rate-payers and environment

Tallahassee Democrat
by Manley Fuller
March 22, 2011

This legislative session we again are faced with one of Florida’s most pressing issues, the state’s property insurance crisis.

In light of our extreme vulnerability to catastrophic storm losses, the Florida Wildlife Federation (FWF) supports the need for reform of both Citizens Property Insurance Corp., and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (Cat Fund).

Reform efforts address the hurricane taxes that are levied on our insurance premiums because of the structure of these government-run entities.

Nonprofits and all Florida insurance policyholders are still paying for the 2004 and 2005 storms and will be forced to continue paying for these storms for at least another five years.

FWF will continue to advocate for legislative reform that will end the practice of allowing Citizens and the Cat Fund to subsidize reckless coastal development in the most hazardous areas of the state with artificially low premiums. Not only is it ethically and fiscally inappropriate to require these subsidies from Florida’s businesses, nonprofits and working families, but also it threatens the remaining unblemished beaches, coastal environments and barrier islands that are central to Florida’s tourism and economic development.

Moreover, natural, undeveloped coastal islands benefit all Floridians by helping to reduce inland storm damage. Actuarially sound insurance rates will serve to disincentivize future development in low-lying, flood-prone areas and along undisturbed coastal barriers.

In 2010 (actually an active Atlantic storm year), we were fortunate that steering currents spared us from any tropical storms making landfall on our coast, but another storm season starts in just three months.

It is imperative that Florida’s legislative leaders use this regular legislative session to make the desperately needed changes to protect Florida, its residents and the environment from these irrational insurance subsidies.

We should not continue to allow all Floridians, including nonprofits, businesses, schools, churches, renters and automobile policyholders across the state, to subsidize those who choose to live in high-risk areas.
On Wednesday, the House Insurance Committee will take up bills related to this important issue.

I urge our elected leaders to change both Citizens and the Cat Fund in an effort to eliminate the insurance surcharges all Floridians are paying and help protect our coastal environment, which provides us with so many economic and environmental benefits.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Manley Fuller is president of the Florida Wildlife Federation, based in Tallahassee. Contact him at wildlfed@gmail.com.

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20110322/OPINION05/103220304/Manley-Fuller-Insurance-reform-benefits-rate-payers-and-environment#ixzz1HjxBTGZL

Read More
TOP

Protect residents, nonprofits and others from ‘irrational’ storm tax

The Tampa Tribune
by Manley Fuller
March 19, 2011

This legislative session we are once again faced with one of the state’s most pressing issues — Florida’s property insurance crisis.

In light of our extreme vulnerability to catastrophic storm losses, the Florida Wildlife Federation supports the need to reform both Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund.

This is an effort to address the hurricane taxes that are levied on our insurance premiums due to the structure of these government-run entities. Nonprofits and all Florida insurance policyholders are still paying for the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes and will be forced to continue paying for these storms for at least five more years.

FWF will continue to advocate for legislative reform that will end the practice of allowing Citizens Insurance and the Cat Fund to subsidize reckless coastal development in the most hazardous areas of the state with artificially low premiums. Not only is it ethically and fiscally inappropriate to require these subsidies from Florida’s businesses, nonprofits and working families, it also threatens the remaining unblemished beaches, coastal environments and barrier islands that are central to Florida’s tourism and economic development.

Moreover, natural, undeveloped coastal islands benefit all Floridians by helping reduce inland storm damage. Actuarially sound insurance rates will serve as disincentives to future development in low-lying, flood-prone areas and along undisturbed coastal barriers.

In 2010 — an overall active Atlantic Basin hurricane season — we were fortunate to have been spared, thanks to steering currents. But another storm season starts in just three months. It is imperative that Florida’s legislative leaders use this regular session to make desperately needed changes to protect Florida, residents and the environment from these irrational insurance subsidies.

We should not continue to allow all Floridians, including nonprofits, businesses, schools, churches, renters and automobile policyholders across the state, to subsidize those who choose to live in high-risk, flood-prone areas.

I urge elected leaders to change Citizens and the Cat Fund to eliminate the insurance surcharges all Floridians are paying and help protect our coastal environment, which provides so many economic and environmental benefits.

Manley Fuller is president of the Florida Wildlife Federation.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/mar/19/MEOPINO2-protect-residents-nonprofits-and-others-f/news-opinion-commentary/

Read More
TOP

Home insurers that want out of Florida

Sun Sentinel
by Julie Patel
March 18, 2011

Lawmakers are considering bills this year to beef up the state’s property insurance market and make it more attractive to insurers.

The bills include SB 408, SB 1330 and SB 1714.

Large national insurers dropped hundreds of thousands of policies in Florida after Hurricane Andrew in 1992 and the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes. Four smaller home insurers folded in 2009 and early 2010 and others have asked to leave the state or drop policies.

Here’s a list from the Office of Insurance Regulation of companies that asked to scale back from Florida in 2010:

American Home Assurance Co. received approval from regulators to drop all of its 16,388 homeowners policies.

Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. received approval to drop all of its roughly 27,000 homeowners policies, mostly in Northern Florida.

Mercury General Corp. and subsidiaries American Mercury and Mercury Insurance Co. of Florida asked to drop all of their 8,651 homeowners policies because of losses due to sinkhole claims. The company received approval last year to raise statewide rates by an average 25 percent.

Cooperativa de Seguros Múltiples de Puerto Rico wants to drop all of its roughly 6,000 homeowners policies.

Royal Palm Insurance Co. has asked to drop 12,500 of its roughly 105,000 residential insurance policies. It received approval last year for a 15 percent statewide average rate hike.

Foremost Insurance Co. wants to drop 2,859 mobile home policies. The company, which has roughly 49,000 policies, received approval to raise rates by a statewide average of 10 percent last year.

Some policyholders with First Home Insurance will be also dropped but we have not heard back yet from OIR or the company the number.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/03/home_insurers_that_want_out_of_1.html

Read More
TOP

Florida — every one of us — must get out of property insurance business; allow insurers to sell across state lines

TCPalm
by Hal Valeche
March 17, 2011

The atrocious run of hurricanes we suffered through in 2004 and 2005 has been followed by an almost unnatural period of calm. Almost enough prolonged calm to make us forget about the disaster that could hit every Florida property owner and taxpayer if, God forbid, another Andrew- or Charley-like storm is in our future.

The disaster I’m talking about is the almost unlimited potential liability we all took on when Charlie “Your premiums will drop like a rock” Crist decided, for dubious reasons, that Citizens Property Insurance should become the largest property insurer in the state…

See the full story at: http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2011/mar/17/hal-valeche-florida-151-every-one-of-us-151-must/

Read More
TOP

Reason behind high insurance premiums

SunSentinel
by Steve Pociask
March 16, 2011

High coastal exposure to hurricanes is one reason Florida has the highest property insurance rates in the country, but it’s only part of the reason. Fifteen years ago, Florida’s homeowner insurance premiums averaged 30 percent higher than the U.S. average, but today Floridians are paying nearly 90 percent more, according to data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. Indeed, the average insurer in Florida has lost money over the last decade, despite the fact that there has not been a major hurricane in nearly six years. Why are Floridians paying so much? Florida is saddled with a host of public policies that were supposedly implemented to protect consumers, but that actually benefit trial lawyers, insurance frauds, insurance adjustors, risky drivers and millionaires who live on the coast, among other special interests. These policies create extra costs for insurers, who simply pass these costs along to consumers in the form of higher property insurance premiums.

Sinkholes are a problem, and consumers need protection, but the system is rife with corruption that benefits trial attorneys, claims adjustors and frauds. For example, one claims adjustor has sent out notices promising Melbourne Beach residents “large insurance settlements” if they have cracks in pavements and walls. Of course, it would be rare to find a home without some settlement cracks in pavements and walls. The process is designed to milk insurers of improper claims, leaving claims adjustors to enrich themselves.

Ironically, there is no requirement that consumers ever make the repairs they are paid for, padding the base for another future claim. While the money seems free, other consumers are on the hook to pay for it. Then there is automobile personal injury protection that allows attorneys a one-way fee statute, which encourages claims abuse and allows attorneys to collect from insurers at two-and-a-half times their normal attorney fees.

The Insurance Information Institute estimates that fake crashes, including their medical costs, add $1 billion to Florida insurance claims. But who really pays? You do. The system is set up to subsidize coastal properties, but the result increases everyone’s costs as the subsidies lead to more property being put at risk. Adjustors are paid more if they can justify higher property losses, and consumers, when paid, are not required to make a repair. This encourages excessive payments and multiple claims for the same loss. Yes, you pay for that, too.

A recent study by the American Consumer Institute found that regulations were a major contributor to high consumer property insurance prices. In particular, the study found that price regulation eventually contributed to higher consumer prices by pushing the most financially stable and well-capitalized insurers out of the market, and leaving surplus-starved firms behind. Those regulations have led to a greater need to raise prices and a greater incidence of insolvencies. This means that consumers will pay more, but get less.

In reality, Florida consumers are paying disproportionately higher property insurance premiums in order to benefit political special interest groups and fraud.

Steve Pociask is president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, a nonprofit educational and research institute.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-insurance-regulation-forum-20110316,0,6480200.story

Read More