this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
8 points (100.0% liked)

United States | News & Politics

1906 readers
819 users here now

Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

Post anything related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Insurance is a suckers game if you are trying to get insurance on a piece of land that will be underwater in the next few decades. Who wants to take on a risk that is guaranteed to happen?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Generally, insurance companies aren't taking that risk. They can decline to renew your policy if they give you 120 days notice, so, for the most part, they are only insuring the next year.

This is all about the immediate risk of major hurricanes and the rapidly climbing costs of rebuilds. I know people in Colorado are really struggling to rebuild because costs have risen so much recently and insurance didn't keep up. I recently moved insurers (to Farmers, ha) and increased my rebuild amount by nearly 30%. That certainly came with a policy hike, but gives me enough that I have reasonable confidence I could indeed rebuild a comparable house.

I suspect there's also a risk concentration problem with some insurers. I've got to imagine they are looking at massive computer models of possible hurricane tracks and seeing scenarios where there's an outsized exposure. Still, what is curious to me is that they can't price it in as that's essentially the business that they are in. Would the required rate increase really be that unpalatable?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

People were saying Florida would be underwater “in a few decades” in 2005, almost a few decades ago…. And it’s not. Florida has a barrier island (it’s man made, I think) and mangroves, both of which slow land erosion along its coast.

Meanwhile there are people living there who need insurance

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The thing about insurance companies is they are out to make money. They don't care about philosophy or the blowing of the political winds. So for them to pull out of Florida they must have analyses that show that pulling out will make them more money than staying in the market. It doesn't matter if there are people there who need insurance, Farmers is out to make money not give it away in a bad investment.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The problem is we allow them to subdivide the nation in their policies. The risk in Florida isn't shared across the nation, which would mitigate this issue.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we should instead punish everyone else for not living in a documented flood plane?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

You're not being punished in that scenario. You're in a larger pool which lowers risk. Lower risk means lower premiums. It's one of the principles that makes socialized medicine in countries all over the world cheaper than the US healthcare system.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But that's the way insurance tends to work - actuaries look at the risk involved in ensuring person X or group X against threat Y and charge accordingly.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Larger pool, lower risk. That's one of the basics in actuary tables.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's getting worse every year, as seen by insurance companies jacking up rates or pulling out entirely.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So you're telling me you'll believe a big company with actuarial tables and a financial stake over some rando on the Internet? Typical... /s

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

So like you’re just ignoring the “significant increase in flooding in south Florida over the last decade”? (Link)[https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/382/207/2020/]

Florida is sinking, while sea levels are rising. It’s causing more frequent flooding, but it’s also claiming land every day. If Florida isn’t experiencing any of the issues that climate change brought about then I guess all of the insurance companies leaving, and marking “increased environmental disasters” as their biggest reason is more to do with… people eating too much McDonald’s? Or could it be that they’re leaving for the exact same reason that scientists have been saying for decades. Florida, much like the rest of the south, is sinking and hurricanes are increasing in both frequency and power. Which leads to more environmental disasters.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

People were saying Florida would be underwater “in a few decades” in 2005,

It would be useful to see the exact quote in context. Do you have it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

But it's not just land erosion along the coast that you need to worry about.

Miami is already getting salt-water intrusion in the storm sewer system, which makes them run backwards. This will eventually intrude into the aquifer there as well making the water undrinkable without expensive filtration.

The limestone that all of south Florida sits on is literally being eaten away by ocean acidification.

That same limestone prevents any kind of dyke or seawall system from working.

Sinkholes are opening up in the middle of the state due to so much water being pumped out of the aquifer & it not being able to replenish fast enough.

It doesn't matter if people need insurance. Insurance companies aren't in the business of giving away money.