|
POLICYHOLDERS OF AMERICA
GIVES THE NOD TO THE MOST POLICYHOLDER-FRIENDLY RUNNING
IN MIDTERM ELECTION Who’s got the guts to tame the beast?
(Charleston, SC – October 14, 2010) Today, Policyholders
of America (“POA”), a non‐profit organization providing free claims
assistance to homeowners across the country, issued the list of political
candidates scoring highest on the policyholder‐friendly and insurance
reform meters.
Since 2001, more than 2.5 million people have joined POA
because the group gives homeowners with property losses a fighting chance
to receive adequate payment for legitimate insurance claims filed under
homeowner policies.
Says Melinda Ballard, President, POA, “Homeowner insurance
is mandatory for anyone with a mortgage. As such, insurance should offer
the same consumer protections other mandated products and services offer.
Stronger consumer protections would result in a more affordable and
available options which can only be achieved if those making and enacting
rules not be beholding to the industry. It’s a true David and Goliath
story and those elected because of television ads promising to reign‐in
big business, rarely are willing to wade into the actual battle. If the
playing field is to be leveled, we need to elect only those who believe
that consumer protection and pro‐business are not mutually exclusive
concepts and can effectively be balanced. In fact, the very foundation of
the free‐enterprise system is competition ‐‐ providing a better product or
service to the consumer to what is currently available, and making unfair
business practices unprofitable. For decades, insurance industry lobbyists
successfully restricted market entry of any new alternative to the flawed
home insurance policies, fought and won rate increases while slashing
coverage and built themselves a thiefdom in the process. All the while,
the only protections afforded by regulators and lawmakers are to the sole
benefit of the insurance industry. It’s a slap in the face of the
free‐market system.”
To better understand POA’s endorsements, one must
understand POA’s primary objectives for the next three years. They include
but are not limited to:
It makes no sense for mortgage‐holders
(banks and other institutions) to require that homeowners maintain
coverage despite the fact that it is extremely unlikely that adequate
payment will be made if and when disaster strikes. When a legitimate
covered claim is denied or underpaid, both the mortgage‐holder and
homeowner are left stuck with an unsalable damaged home.
The solution is to put the very parties
with the most at stake – those with a financial interest in the property
‐‐ in the driver’s seat. Instead of paying an insurance company whose
profit motive trumps the welfare of policyholders and the mortgage‐holder,
POA is in favor of allowing banks and mortgage companies to create their
own insurance co‐op or exchange made up of the homes (and homeowners) in
the mortgage portfolio. The homeowners participating in the co‐op or
exchange would be owners of the insurance co‐op or exchange.
The co‐ops or exchanges would be managed
and administered, for a small fee, by mortgage‐holders (banks). The
infrastructure currently exists for state and/or federal oversight.
The net effect would be entities with the
most to lose if a home is not repaired properly actually guide the
repairs. This makes for a streamlined, faster and fairer claims response,
lower premiums, and a creative revenue stream for banks and mortgage
companies and investment returns for homeowners.
The fox guards the henhouse when flood
waters rise. Homeowner policies allegedly cover wind and driving rain but
NOT rising flood waters. Those living in flood prone areas are usually
required to buy flood policies issued under the National Flood Program by
FEMA and underwritten by the U.S. taxpayer. FEMA has no sales staff or
adjusters that work for them directly so they allow most of the major
insurance companies to sell flood insurance and adjust flood claims as
they arise. Sounds good but there is a huge, undeniable problem – FEMA
paid someone else’s tab.
Here’s the reality: A hurricane hits. A
roof is blown off (covered by a homeowner policy) causing $50,000 in
damage; Rising water also entered the home (covered by a flood policy)
causing $75,000 in damages. Total damages totaled $125,000. For our
purposes here, the homeowner was issued by Doowey, Cheatham & Howe (DCH),
a fictitious insurance company, and a flood policy issued by the National
Flood Program. The homeowner files a claim under both the homeowner and
flood policies. DCH sends adjusters to the site to adjust the homeowner
policy claim and the flood policy claim. DCH adjusters – be they on staff
or independent ‐‐ have a built‐in incentive to lessen the financial load
for DCH by stealing from Peter to pay Paul – charging the taxpayer
$125,000 ($50,000 more than the $75,000 the flood policy should have
paid), reducing the DCH’s responsibility to zero ($50,000 less than what
DCH should have paid). The homeowner received his or her repair money and
may not know or care who actually paid the claim, No checks and balances
have ever been put in place to end this systemic practice even though
Congress heard testimony confirming that it is a common problem.
Magnify this one instance by the thousands
of claims filed after a disaster. The ill‐gotten gains add up to tens‐, if
not hundreds‐ of billions of dollars in stealth bail outs diverted from
unwitting taxpayers to profiteering insurance giants.
POA proposes that once a disaster is declared, FEMA be
required to dispatch an advance team of adjusters to the hard hit
location, spot check damaged homes, determine if damage is caused by wind
or rising water, document such damage, compare their records against what
is being submitted by the carriers, and determine the magnitude of the
mischarges. If and when irregularities are discovered, guilty carriers and
adjusters would face serious consequences including fines and criminal
charges.
While the drumbeat is getting louder for insurance to be
federally regulated, insurance is currently regulated at the
State
level ‐‐ making Governors,
State legislators and State Insurance Commissioners ‐‐ the key players.
However, the advancement of the POA initiatives discussed herein –
mortgage‐holder insurance coops/exchanges and greater oversight of the
adjustment of claims filed on flood policies – may require
Federal
legislation and
regulation, hence US Senators and US Representatives may become
instrumental to these and other reform proposals.
Given the foregoing, POA is pleased to provide the
identities of the candidates who’ve emerged as the most
policyholder‐friendly. Their challengers, on the other hand, have
displayed a propensity to protect the insurance industry at the expense of
the consumer.
Point to the state and the names of the candidates with
high scores will appear.
About POA’s endorsements: All candidates running for a
particular office were equally scrutinized. Factors weighed by POA
included: past voting records (whenever available), insurance industry
ties (campaign contributions from insurance company employees, employment
records, etc..), interviews conducted by POA and others, statements made
while campaigning, track record of the candidate under pressure from
special interests (i.e. Did he/she cave under pressure from the lobby?),
position statements, questionnaires, and input from members of POA who’ve
had direct contact with the candidate(s) running for a particular office.
|