allstate not renewing my home owners policy.....now what

[painguy]

iL

allstate cancld our homw owners policy after 2 claims where made for water damage. NOW THEY want $2999.00 per year. what to do. I called all the big companies they will not give me coverage or its close to 3k. any help would be great this is just MAD.

 

[Zigner]

You are most probably running into the notorious "blacklist" maintained by data-mining companies. Outfits like Choicepoint go out and data-mine all kinds of tidbits about you and compile a big profile of all your claims and all the payments. When you attempt to purchase insurance, the data-miners sell this information back to the prospective insurer.

How is your property titled? Do you own it alone, or are others, such as your wife, co-owners? If your wife, is it co-titled to her in the married name?

If your wife has an insurable interest, have her purchase the insurance, as sole purchaser, by applying in her maiden name. That should circumvent the Choicepoint data-miners.

We do not encourage insurance fraud on this forum...

 

[JustAPal00]

We do not encourage insurance fraud on this forum...

His plan won't work any way!

 

[Zigner]

His plan won't work any way!

I decided to go with the big guns first

 

[JustAPal00]

OP, most states have a program for uninsurable properties. Ask your agent about it. If it's a matter of not being able to afford it, you may be able to run a risk for a few years by underinsuring your home. Some of the state programs allow this. If you suffer a total loss you will be screwed, but you would be covered for smaller claims. You most likely need to be 3 years with no claims in order to go back on the lower rate policies.

 

[Zigner]

Works just fine. The insurance can be purchased by anyone with an insurable interest. You get "fraud" when someone purchases insurance on property in which there is no insurable interest. It is perfectly proper for a woman to purchase insurance in either her married or her maiden name. Her maiden name is already on any number of documents she uses consistently, including her birth certificate and (probably) her driver's license). Sorry, Ziggy.

The wife's LEGAL name is her MARRIED name. OP would be attempting to conceal her true identity - most folks would call that insurance fraud.


Stop giving advice that can cause legal problems for an OP.

 

[ecmst12]

And claims are listed on the PROPERTY, not any particular person's name.

 

[Zigner]

Utter rubbish. And you know better.

Yes, I understand you are posting utter rubbish - that's why you need to stop.

 

[moburkes]

And claims are listed on the PROPERTY, not any particular person's name.

Well, both. Claims are located by both the named insureds AND the property address, so attempting to circumvent the system by using wife's maiden name will still allow the claims to show up fo rthe property. Then when asked by the agent when was the home purchased, and the insured replies, they'll know about the claims.

 

[FlyingRon]

The wife's LEGAL name is her MARRIED name. OP would be attempting to conceal her true identity - most folks would call that insurance fraud.

Not true. Her legal name is the one she uses. Nothing requires a woman to take the husband's name at marriage. She just gets a free pass to switch based on the marriage certificate (where normally it would take a court order).

Anyway, the insurance companies aren't going to be confused by name subterfuge even if it was fraudulent. The databases are all keyed by address, for not only is the issue the OWNER, but also whether the property is inclined to certain claims. In addition to the "black list" there's the infamous "red line".

 

[JustAPal00]

All true of course, but that does not imply that the premium is a function of the property or the property's past claims history. The moment the property changes hands, the new owner seems to magically obtain a premium that does not reflect the past claims experience.

Not in MD or PA! I can't speak for the OP's state, but premiums and approvals are affected by past claims on the property in those two. Claims follow both the person and the property!

 

[ecmst12]

And the circumstances under which premiums can be raised is HIGHLY regulated and outlined by the company's policy language and underwriting guidelines, both of which must be filed with and approved by the state insurance commission. They are not just raising the rates "willy nilly" as you seem to suggest.

 

[Zigner]

Not true. Her legal name is the one she uses. Nothing requires a woman to take the husband's name at marriage. She just gets a free pass to switch based on the marriage certificate (where normally it would take a court order).

Yes, however, in the context of this thread, and in the context of Hapless recommending our OP having his wife use something other than her legal name (ie: her maiden name), my post was correct.

 

[moburkes]

All true of course, but that does not imply that the premium is a function of the property or the property's past claims history. The moment the property changes hands, the new owner seems to magically obtain a premium that does not reflect the past claims experience. So what is really happening is that the insurer is simply jacking the rates up on the OP simply to recoup the loss expenditures. This is legal. The insurer is allowed to surcharge for claims.

And that is not reasonable, in that it stands the principle of insurance on its head. the whole idea of insurance is to spread risk over a large number of properties, so no one owner ends up taking a big hit. When the insurer proceeds to quadruple the premium, the insurer is no longer simply spreading risk: the insurer is gouging the OP. Otherwise, the insurer would be charging the same increased premium on every new successive purchaser. It's rare that I've seen a premium quadruple. Even rarer when I've seen it happen solely occur because of claims. Likely other factors, like insurance score decreasing, overall premiums increasing, etc, contributed to the increase.

Now they can do that just to make some coin, to be sure; that's the virtue of capitalism. But what has happened is that the insurers operate their data pool as an oligopoly, specifically to force the property owner to end up absorbing the losses through the jacked premiums (thus preserving the insurer's cash). If they ran the data pool directly, that would be violative of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act; so they have set it up to become "customers" of Choicepoint, which neatly circumvents the State Attorneys General. Cute, but hardly in keeping with the spirit of anti-trust legislation. I can't speak to this. Not really sure what you're saying. It's over my head.

Yet you fellows rather neatly avoid criticizing the insurers for this behavior. Who said I was a fellow?

The OP could thus counterpoint by vending, via quit-claim or otherwise, his ownership to his wife (assuming he feels confident in the surviving strength of his marriage). The wife has the perfect right to use her maiden name. Now watch what happens: the premium is back to its original level. That squarely puts the lie to the representation that the insurer is rating the property according to risk. You're assuming that she's not currently on the policy. If she's currently on the insurance policy, then going through that entire policy to avoid having the claim associated with her name, wouldn't solve a thing.

Even where the property is not sold, the posture of the insurer is unethical (admittedly not illegal - yet). Assume the situation of a home with an old oak tree. Along comes a windstorm and the tree falls into the house; there is a loss. Now the next year's premium gets jacked up to the moon. But there is no second old tree to fall down; it was a one-shot occurrence. Nonetheless, the insurer jacks up the premium. How can this be justified as a response to loss exposure? Paying the claim is part of spreading and absorbing the risk. Once again, the insurer is simply standing the principle of insurance on its head. So don't be surprised when the policyholders develop their own stratagems to counterpoint this.

Are you really saying that a person with 1 or 3 or 12 claims shouldn't pay more than a person with 0 claims? By the way, many insurers don't surcharge for no-fault claims like the one you've described above. Some do, but many don't.

The risk is still being spread. In a total loss on a $100,000 (Coverage A) policy, the insurer could potentially pay $200,000. Someone is paying the other $199,200.

 

[tammy8]

*Most water claims are maintaince.

And when insureds call me and ask about a claim, I need to point them to this one. I can't beleive the people that get pizzed when I tell them NOT to file a couple hundred dollar claim**************


And water claims have the potential to end up being mold claims.