We are finishing up our discussion of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision that consumer advocates say could be a game-changer. The case involved a hurricane insurance policy that did not conform to state requirements. In particular, the high deductible warning was in a smaller font and used the word “windstorm” instead of “hurricane.”
Hurricane forecasters have revised their 2012 predictions. Originally, the experts said the season would boast just 10 named storms, four of which would be hurricanes; two of the hurricanes would develop into major hurricanes. When the official hurricane season started this week, though, the numbers increased to 13 storms, five hurricanes and two major hurricanes.
At the request of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Florida’s Supreme Court has handed down a decision that commentators say is clearly anti-consumer. The case involved the language of a hurricane insurance policy that did not comply with Florida law. The plaintiff also alleged the insurer had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The U.S. Senate voted today to extend the National Flood Insurance Program for 60 days beyond its May 31 expiration date. The only movement toward a long-term renewal came on Wednesday, when Senate leadership and the author of an NFIP reform and long-term renewal bill agreed to “allow debate” about the measure this year. The news is likely both a relief and a major source of frustration for homeowners in Florida’s Coastal Region.
The Economic Policy subcommittee of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee held a hearing on May 9 to examine some of the issues in the area of flood insurance. With the National Flood Insurance Program currently scheduled to expire before June, some committee members called on their fellow legislators to take prompt action both to reform the program and to reauthorize it for the long haul. The program has provided important benefits and safeguards against property damage to homes in Florida and elsewhere in the country.
If you watch television at all, you have probably seen one of the ads for cars with the self-parking feature. The insurance industry has been strangely quiet on the subject of automated features like parallel parking. It will be interesting to see if insurers, auto manufacturers and the courts draw a new line between personal and product liability.
A bill quietly made it through the Florida Legislature this session that poses some tricky questions for the insurance industry. Surprisingly, it is not related to property insurance or personal injury protection coverage, the two “hot button” insurance issues in the state. Rather, the new law deals with autonomous, or driverless, motor vehicles, and our question is this: If the car drives itself, is an auto insurance company obligated to defend the policyholder from a third-party lawsuit?
Citizens Property Insurance Corp., Florida’s state-backed insurance company, has re-thought the idea of increasing rates to levels higher than those allowed by law for all clients that sign at the beginning of 2013. The company has long been accused of treating homeowners insurance policyholders, among other insureds, as a number instead of people who desperately need their services.
We are finishing up our discussion of what insurers and the cruise industry have learned since the Titanic went down 100 years ago. Both Titanic and the more recent Costa Concordia disaster are great illustrations of how companies set priorities. Most of this has been in the context of third-party insurance coverage, the kind of coverage companies buy to help pay for damages or injuries suffered by someone on their property.
We are continuing our discussion of the Titanic, the Costa Concordia and other maritime accidents and what effect, if any, the disasters have had on the insurance and shipping industries. The Costa Concordia could very well cost more than the Exxon Valdez debacle. That doesn’t just include the damage to the ship, of course; if the crew or the cruise line is found to be at fault, the insurance company would have to pay any judgments awarded to passengers or their families.
