Do you think property insurance carriers (home) have been allowed to grow predatory?

[cabanafrau]

We did not have that problem with Nationwide. We had two home claims, one when a toilet inlet valve broke while we were out of town and caused tens of thousands of dollars in water damage, and the second following a hail storm that forced a replacement of our roof.

We've changed from them (also had them for auto) when they tried to up our auto rate.

Kiss your lucky stars, treasure your rabbit's foot, hang onto your lucky clover whatever it takes to keep your good fortune flowing. Genuinely, from what I've observed across the spectrum of insurance litigation your experience is literally incredible -- especially factoring in not one but two homeowner claims, both of which touch on some of the most contentious issues in coverage, water and roof. Truly, yours is a unicorn situation from what I've seen -- not saying that sarcastically, genuinely happy for you.

 

[EACarlson]

Kiss your lucky stars, treasure your rabbit's foot, hang onto your lucky clover whatever it takes to keep your good fortune flowing. Genuinely, from what I've observed across the spectrum of insurance litigation your experience is literally incredible -- especially factoring in not one but two homeowner claims, both of which touch on some of the most contentious issues in coverage, water and roof. Truly, yours is a unicorn situation from what I've seen -- not saying that sarcastically, genuinely happy for you.

Is it possible your position within the legal industry is altering your perception? Like when we hear only negative reviews of businesses because that's all that ever post.
I've never had an issue with my insurance companies. I've never had a home claim, but have had multiple auto claims with no issues.

 

[barkley]

Provided there is enough notice for someone to "shop around", yes. We shopped around last year after Nationwide said they were raising our rates and saved about 10-20% (IIRC) by going to a smaller company.

last week when the first wave of homeowners returned to see what (if anything) remained of their homes I saw a couple interviewed on the national news who spoke of how their insurance carrier a year ago had dropped their fire coverage and how thankful they were that within the last few months they had FINALLY found new coverage but how difficult/long it took to even find a company. they said they had put in so much time and effort locating a new company and they feared that many of their neighbors who had gotten similar cancellations were still uninsured for fire and now in far worse positions than they perceived themselves to be in (and their home was a total loss).

 

[NotUrsula]

IME, these days insurers will really punish you for a single claim. I had my one and only at-fault accident ever in 45 years of driving back in 2019; they totaled my car and paid repairs on the other 2 that were damaged in the accident, but raised our rates 30% plus removed our 10% no-accident discount for 5 years after that; the extra premiums added up to a whole lot more than the settlement and the repairs ended up costing, and when we added our DD16 to the policy the following year our total premium on the same number of cars (both paid-off, btw) more than doubled. DH does always insist on carrying full replacement coverage on our vehicles for as long as we own them; I wasn't raised that way, and until our marriage always dropped down to the legal minimum a year after the car was fully paid off. I think it wastes money as long as I've got a replacement down-payment sitting in the bank, but he disagrees, so we pay up. Right now my vehicle is worth maybe $8K and his is worth about $2800, but we pay $7K/yr to insure them. We've never filed a claim on the house; they have told us that they pay and then cancel if they pay a homeowners claim, so it would have to be at least $10K in damage to make that worth it.

DS27 has never been in a real auto accident, but 2 years ago he VERY slowly backed into a woman in a parking lot who wasn't watching what she was doing and stopped right behind him as he was pulling out between two large trucks. It did no damage at all to either vehicle, but the woman insisted on filing a claim (which was not paid because both the LEO called to the scene and the adjuster who looked at her car later each independently determined that he had done no damage to her vehicle), but they raised his rates 25% because he had "been in an accident". Twice this year his car has been slightly damaged from being hit whilst parked on the street by someone who never fessed up, but he's not about to tell the insurance company anything about that, claim or no claim.

 

[sam_gordon]

IME, these days insurers will really punish you for a single claim. I had my one and only at-fault accident ever in 45 years of driving back in 2019; they totaled my car and paid repairs on the other 2 that were damaged in the accident, but raised our rates 30% plus removed our 10% no-accident discount for 5 years after that; the extra premiums added up to a whole lot more than the settlement and the repairs ended up costing, and when we added our DD16 to the policy the following year our total premium on the same number of cars (both paid-off, btw) more than doubled. DH does always insist on carrying full replacement coverage on our vehicles for as long as we own them; I wasn't raised that way, and until our marriage always dropped down to the legal minimum a year after the car was fully paid off. I think it wastes money as long as I've got a replacement down-payment sitting in the bank, but he disagrees, so we pay up. Right now my vehicle is worth maybe $8K and his is worth about $2800, but we pay $7K/yr to insure them. We've never filed a claim on the house; they have told us that they pay and then cancel if they pay a homeowners claim, so it would have to be at least $10K in damage to make that worth it.

DS27 has never been in a real auto accident, but 2 years ago he VERY slowly backed into a woman in a parking lot who wasn't watching what she was doing and stopped right behind him as he was pulling out between two large trucks. It did no damage at all to either vehicle, but the woman insisted on filing a claim (which was not paid because both the LEO called to the scene and the adjuster who looked at her car later each independently determined that he had done no damage to her vehicle), but they raised his rates 25% because he had "been in an accident". Twice this year his car has been slightly damaged from being hit whilst parked on the street by someone who never fessed up, but he's not about to tell the insurance company anything about that, claim or no claim.

Sounds like its time to find a different company.

 

[china mom]

@NotUrsula I agree with Sam. would look for another company. In my entire driving career, I have only had one at fault accident in my personal vehicle and it was paid without my rates going up. My mother had an accident while driving my car and I kept my "Good Driver Discount". The other diver sued for $1000,000 for injuries and the insurance company handled the defense.

I have only had one homeowner claim - a tree branch through the roof, causing damage tot he floor as well. Insurance paid and my rates were not raised.

If my DH insisted on keeping full coverage, I would show him the math. Older cars are sometimes more expensive to insure because they do not have all of the safety features of newer cars. And the insurance company will not pay enough to replace it anyway. You will get blue book value. I would definitely drop the coverage on the $2,800 car to bare minimum.

 

[_19disnA]

I have no complaints about my home owner's insurance company. Had a tree fall on the roof during a windy storm a few years ago. They paid for a number of things I didn't even know would be covered relating to interior damage. I tend to think you see online mostly those who have something to complain about. When things go well, people are less likely to comment.

 

[cabanafrau]

Is it possible your position within the legal industry is altering your perception? Like when we hear only negative reviews of businesses because that's all that ever post.
I've never had an issue with my insurance companies. I've never had a home claim, but have had multiple auto claims with no issues.

It's entirely possible. I will say it also lines up with plenty of anecdotal experience I'm aware of via quite an assortment of acquaintances, and acquaintances of acquaintances over the years as well.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

For every claim people say "they denied me unfairly" is another claim an insurance company didn't have to cover but did. In many respects some of it comes down to understanding what is and isn't covered. It's a false narrative to present it as if no claim will be covered unless you pursue legal channels. No insurance company is an angel but to present it like they are the devil is wrong.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

IME, these days insurers will really punish you for a single claim. I had my one and only at-fault accident ever in 45 years of driving back in 2019; they totaled my car and paid repairs on the other 2 that were damaged in the accident, but raised our rates 30% plus removed our 10% no-accident discount for 5 years after that; the extra premiums added up to a whole lot more than the settlement and the repairs ended up costing, and when we added our DD16 to the policy the following year our total premium on the same number of cars (both paid-off, btw) more than doubled. DH does always insist on carrying full replacement coverage on our vehicles for as long as we own them; I wasn't raised that way, and until our marriage always dropped down to the legal minimum a year after the car was fully paid off. I think it wastes money as long as I've got a replacement down-payment sitting in the bank, but he disagrees, so we pay up. Right now my vehicle is worth maybe $8K and his is worth about $2800, but we pay $7K/yr to insure them. We've never filed a claim on the house; they have told us that they pay and then cancel if they pay a homeowners claim, so it would have to be at least $10K in damage to make that worth it.

DS27 has never been in a real auto accident, but 2 years ago he VERY slowly backed into a woman in a parking lot who wasn't watching what she was doing and stopped right behind him as he was pulling out between two large trucks. It did no damage at all to either vehicle, but the woman insisted on filing a claim (which was not paid because both the LEO called to the scene and the adjuster who looked at her car later each independently determined that he had done no damage to her vehicle), but they raised his rates 25% because he had "been in an accident". Twice this year his car has been slightly damaged from being hit whilst parked on the street by someone who never fessed up, but he's not about to tell the insurance company anything about that, claim or no claim.

Don't get me wrong I understand how you can be in the position of saying you've had no accident but one in X amount of years but then you type out that you had an accident and say they removed your no-accident discount...yes..well you've no longer have that record of no accident. That is why some companies and some states have an "accident forgiveness" that you can add on. Accident-free discount and accident forgiveness coverage are two entirely different things. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assume that you'd continue to get a discount for no-accidents when you've now had an accident, regardless of what it is, regardless of your feelings about it if the discount is written a certain way wherein a certain incident qualifies as making the discount null then they have to remove it. To treat you differently than other clients would be against compliance. Read what your policy back (what your insurance company and product does and doesn't cover, all of the definitions you would need, etc) to get more information.

As far as your son I suspect there's more to that story, either the insurance agent told you the increase was due to an accident but it may not have been or wholly responsible for it (I know as an Underwriter I could "mock" remove the accident and see how much the policy was increasing due to it, that may or may not be what is possible on your insurance company's side) or the accident was treated differently than being described in your comments by the insurance company.

 

[NotUrsula]

Don't get me wrong I understand how you can be in the position of saying you've had no accident but one in X amount of years but then you type out that you had an accident and say they removed your no-accident discount...yes..well you've no longer have that record of no accident. That is why some companies and some states have an "accident forgiveness" that you can add on. Accident-free discount and accident forgiveness coverage are two entirely different things. I'm not sure how you could reasonably assume that you'd continue to get a discount for no-accidents when you've now had an accident, regardless of what it is, regardless of your feelings about it if the discount is written a certain way wherein a certain incident qualifies as making the discount null then they have to remove it. To treat you differently than other clients would be against compliance. Read what your policy back (what your insurance company and product does and doesn't cover, all of the definitions you would need, etc) to get more information.

As far as your son I suspect there's more to that story, either the insurance agent told you the increase was due to an accident but it may not have been or wholly responsible for it (I know as an Underwriter I could "mock" remove the accident and see how much the policy was increasing due to it, that may or may not be what is possible on your insurance company's side) or the accident was treated differently than being described in your comments by the insurance company.

Oh, I didn't assume that; it was reasonable to remove the discount, and I mentioned it only because it was in addition to the other 30% premium increase, not instead of it or offset by it. A 40% effective increase seemed very excessive for a claim that paid out $12K, given that neither of us had had a claim (or a traffic ticket) for the entire time we've been with the company.

As for which company we use; I go out on bids for our insurance every 2 years, and this has remained the best rate we can find for about 18 years now. Mostly this is because we live in an older home within the city limits, and the auto theft rate here is high (though our cars are kept in a locked garage at all times when parked at home.) The same goes for DS' coverage; it's high because of where he lives. The business with the backing-out "accident" is definitely the reason for the increase; he called to check, and the dates match. (FWIW, I was there. The other driver's car had pre-existing damage that I believe she was trying to get covered by DS' insurance company, but it was clearly on an area of the vehicle that didn't match the details of the incident, and also had traces of the wrong paint color residue, so the claim was denied. The cop who responded when she called the police chewed her out for wasting his time. DS changed to a different company this year, and the "accident history" caused his rates with the new company to be higher as well, but better than the policy he had previously. He was told that it did not matter that the claim was actually denied and nothing was paid out on it for either car; having it reported as an accident where his car was the only one moving was enough to trigger the higher rate; it accounts for about $400 of the semi-annual premium.)

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Oh, I didn't assume that; it was reasonable to remove the discount, and I mentioned it only because it was in addition to the other 30% premium increase, not instead of it or offset by it. A 40% effective increase seemed very excessive for a claim that paid out $12K, given that neither of us had had a claim (or a traffic ticket) for the entire time we've been with the company.

See my third comment on this specific comment. It's understandable that it's not instead of or offset by it.

the auto theft rate here is high

Which is part of your insurance premium for sure and may in part be part of any increase at renewal (usually seen in the comprehensive coverage premium).

The business with the backing-out "accident" is definitely the reason for the increase; he called to check, and the dates match.

I'm not sure what you mean by the dates matched I'm just telling you that is a common enough answer agents give to their insureds who are calling and complaining about the increase. Whether that actually IS the reason or the majority of the reason may or may not be the case. I don't know that people take stock of what all goes into their renewal rates. Yes indeed an accident can be responsible for the majority or all of the increase but absolutely not always. Insurance companies take rate increases as well as decreases (that they file with the state's DOI). These rate adjustments can be broad and vague or highly specific to specific types of clients (things like age of roof, credit score, zip code, number of UM/UIM payouts in an area, etc). I know at least at the insurance company I worked for MO (since I know you're there) prohibited a credit score to be run more frequently than 3 years so if an insured requested their credit to be rerun it couldn't be run again by the insurance company for 3 years after that---on that one almost no one ever improved their credit score IME from what the policy was being rated on. One year MO, OH and another state had a slew of both MVRs and credit scores run by the insurance company I worked for (which insurance companies can do this) that caused some increases too just by that. FWIW, CA required MVRs to be rerun every auto renewal but doesn't allow credit to be a determining factor in insurance premiums (just thought I'd mention CA since that's what the thread was originally about).

I would have agents call asking why an insurance renewal was going up and they would be convinced it was the accident but that was certainly not the case across the board. That's why I said I could mock block the accident on my end sometimes it was so piddly of an amount but of course what answer do you think an insured is going to assume? The accident was the reason. My next step was to look up what internal notices had been sent to the agent about possible rate increases.

Years back when we switched from Nationwide to Progressive the main reason was just rate increases Nationwide (across the nation) was taken. Unfortunately Progressive has also taken high rate increases. If you've shopped around that frequently and found that no other can beat yours chances are your present insurance company is also taking rate increases just not as high as the others and then you had an accident which adds into it.

Another thing I would see is renewal dates. On average a policy starts processing a renewal 30-45 days in advance at least at the insurance company I worked for in the 30+ states they wrote in (home I saw could be up to 58 days in advance). I'm not saying this for your case but for others reading along if your policy starts the renewal process an insurance company can't affect your policy until the next renewal date. That actually happened to us because my husband was in an accident in August 2023 (of which the Other Party declined having our insurance company pay anything to them, my husband was at fault) but our policy had already started the renewal process. We have a 12 month policy and so September 2024 is when we started seeing the increase due to that accident. We had already had the new policy premium (which was more) for the replacement car back when it was replaced in August 2023.

He was told that it did not matter that the claim was actually denied and nothing was paid out on it for either car

That is correct. People get hung up on paid out amounts. Insurance companies these days typically use sophisticated algorithms comprised of so many factors.

And to understand claims a denied claim is still a claim that's why a $0 paid loss (especially on a home) can still affect your eligibility. Denials happen for multitude of reasons from the loss isn't covered, the loss is under the deductible, there is fraud going on, etc . The only time you can get that removed from your CLUE (Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange) is if your insurance company formerly rescinds the claim (which I did run into that every so often). I don't know if the police took a report but that could also be on his MVR (Motor Vehicle Record). Some accidents are pulled only from MVR some only from CLUE it depends on how the insurance company handled it and the police. For example my accident 15 years ago only pulled from CLUE not from my MVR despite the police having been called and a report made (the other driver was the one that got a ticket which would help explain that). Typically accidents affect premiums for 3 years from the date it starts being charged (not occurred but actually charged), DUI tickets (at least at the insurance company I worked for) was 5 years.

I totally get your angst on it just wanted to provide some more information, it's super easy to think it's X but IME it's often ABCDEF, etc.