Largest home insurer in the country no longer offering policies in California

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

That $18 mil is going to come from somewhere. Multiply this scenario by LOTS of people and it's easy to understand why insurance premiums are skyrocketing percentage wise. So, while you're "smiling bigly" don't forget to write that larger check from here on out...

Don't feign your outrage here, NF. You'd be suing your insurance company if they jerked you around like they did with these two sisters. I've never filed a claim with my own insurance company but I had to with the neighbor's when her dead tree fell on my home a few years ago. I got the repairs done but they gave me a run around before doing it. Wanted me to use their contractor for the estimate and repairs. After a little research, I found out the ins company AND their contractor had been sued a few times by claimants for intimidation and shoddy sub-par workmanship. Maybe 18 mil is a little outrageous but I took it as a message. A message to insurance companies everywhere that people are fed up with the way they're treated after paying premiums for years, often decades without issue only to fear being cancelled for filing a claim. And don't say it doesn't happen because it does.

[NORTY FLATZ]

Originally Posted by JGC97

Don't feign your outrage here, NF. You'd be suing your insurance company if they jerked you around like they did with these two sisters. I've never filed a claim with my own insurance company but I had to with the neighbor's when her dead tree fell on my home a few years ago. I got the repairs done but they gave me a run around before doing it. Wanted me to use their contractor for the estimate and repairs. After a little research, I found out the ins company AND their contractor had been sued a few times by claimants for intimidation and shoddy sub-par workmanship. Maybe 18 mil is a little outrageous but I took it as a message. A message to insurance companies everywhere that people are fed up with the way they're treated after paying premiums for years, often decades without issue only to fear being cancelled for filing a claim. And don't say it doesn't happen because it does.

This is likely the angle the claimants representatives used on the jury. I know it's the angle I'd use, if I were representing a party to a suit, regarding insurance co's, oil co's, power co's and any other "co's" that have been ripping people off for decades... (too bad we can't "sue" the various Governmental entities for the same shoddy service...)

With regards to claim filing reluctance, due to cancellation....that ship has sailed.

That's a favorite thing for ins. co's now. Cancel policy holders even prior to making a claim.

Tree too tall in your backyard? Cancel!

Too much vegetation OUTSIDE YOUR PROPERTY LINE? Cancel!

"High risk" fire area? Cancel!

Not enough egress/evacuation routes? Cancel!

Too many cars in your driveway? Cancel! (Ok, I made that one up.)

Electric car in your garage? Extra charge for this risk. Or cancel!

Right now, ins. co's are LOOKING for a reason to cancel coverage.

Must have something to do with the cost of replacing thousands of homes every year, against an insurance

commisioner that doesn't know up from down....

[JGC97]

Absolutely spot on post, NF. No doubt, that's the argument used by the Plaintiff's attorney. The jury made the determination on the amount the Respondent's were ordered to pay. A hefty cut for the attorney, too. All of this could have been decided without the court getting involved. A little known thing here in CA, as I discovered a few years ago, The Department of Insurance has a special department to handle situations that arise between homeowners and insurance companies. 'Course, that sort of leave attorneys out of the mix and they don't make any money when that happens.

[CA4Now]

Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is holding hearings on his Sustainable Insurance Strategy, a set of comprehensive regulations intended to stabilize rates and make it more attractive for insurers to write homeowners policies, especially in wildfire areas such as hillsides and canyons.

https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-cons...ceStrategy.cfm

https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...ates-fair-plan

[mgforshort]

Originally Posted by JGC97

Absolutely spot on post, NF. No doubt, that's the argument used by the Plaintiff's attorney. The jury made the determination on the amount the Respondent's were ordered to pay. A hefty cut for the attorney, too. All of this could have been decided without the court getting involved. A little known thing here in CA, as I discovered a few years ago, The Department of Insurance has a special department to handle situations that arise between homeowners and insurance companies. 'Course, that sort of leave attorneys out of the mix and they don't make any money when that happens.

I think the purpose of punitive damages is to teach a person or a company to refrain from unethical or unlawful actions. I don't think that the purpose of punitive damages is to turn a dude into a millionaire because he found a dead roach in his sandwich. His actual damages are the cost of another sandwich and a shirt if he threw up.

Punitive damages should be applied, and the money paid into that state or city's general account. The attorneys shouldn't get a percentage either.

I cry when I read in the paper that the jury gave the relatives of a drug addict $ 5 million, in dollars, and that is for a man who stepped in front of a bus; and all this for a man who haven't had a job in the last 30 years. That $ 5 million is money that won't go for fixing roads and bridges. If the money is paid by any insurance company, don't be surprised when the rates rise.