I am a fan of insurance news and bloggers. Here are some websites and blogs that I read daily (or weekly, depending on frequency).
Insurance magazine – Of course. I was an IJ fan way before I got so close to them. I always start here because the news is worth reading and it is focused on what I am concerned about at work, the entire insurance world.
Insurance Nerds – You must get their daily delivery. Tony, Carley & Nick have put together a real community site here. And if you have something to write about, they make it easy to submit articles and get what is in your head in our lives.
Insurance comment – Bill does a good job that deals with coverage issues and he takes on some things in the insurance space. And he is a friend of the academy.
Property insurance coverage right – Chip Merlin and team do a good job to help me understand what is happening in the property insurance legislation around the country. Anyone who writes here is super sharp and helps me understand the legal changes and challenges around the country.
I really like that I do not always agree with everyone I read. By the way, it would help you read things that you disagree with. There are two different advantages to reading things that you do not agree with.
It can force you to think through what you think. When you let yourself be exposed to perspectives that differ from what you own, you learn what others think and (more importantly) how they came to their point of view. If you can track their logic track, two things may happen. You can clarify what you believe and why. On the other hand, they can only convince you that you were wrong.
It helps you continue to grow. Whether you change your mind or not, as you read alternative views, you grow. You know I'm all in education and growth, so you're not surprised I mention it.
Before I dive into what I was not with (of course you saw it coming) I have to say that I do not agree with things in all these places. Some people are too high on the insurance news and others are too low. Some people look at the insurance world through rosy lenses and others look at us with another, yuckier color.
Let me come to my point. I read today's article on property laws on blogs about some recently proposed laws in Florida. This is an example of an article that is not intended to solve the problem, but is meant to make people happy about it. Let me explain.
The article opens with an embedded link to a news article about someone whose claim was underpaid, and the insurance company would not be held responsible for it. It seems relevant, except that it had nothing to do with the specific article. It was an example of a claim that was poorly managed by "National Flood Insurance". I guess the insured had a NFIP policy.
It seems a little dishonest to compare NFIP issues (we already know there are too many problems to count on this federal insurance program) with legislative proposals in Florida.
For his credit, the author tells which bills he opposes and who sponsors them. Awesome. However, he did not give us the specific text he has problems with, and he did not speak to any of the sponsoring legislators. However, he spoke to another legislature and made his experience with the insurance regulation. He did not seem to speak to the legislator about the proposal, but about the insurance legislation in general. It may be worth noting that the sponsor laws are all a political party and the legislator he spoke to is from the other party.
Why didn't he study the law and talk to the sponsors himself? It seems like looking at the specific bills and asking specific questions about the text on these bills would be a better way to inform and educate people about them. It just means if it's the actual point. If it is better to make people upset about something, then it is good.
He then writes this sentence: "I suggest that readers of this blog contact these Florida legislators to help inform them." Why didn't he do it?
After reading the language in one of the bills (HB751), I have some comments to make. Note that I am not a lawyer, and I do not play one on television. I only read things and try to understand them the best way I can. The biggest question he has with this bill is that it removes civil penalties for "not trying in good faith to settle claims if it could and should have done it in any event if it had acted fairly and honestly with its insured and with due consideration of his or her interests ".
It seems like a really bad deal until you notice that the bill also creates a new part in the Florida Statute that prescribes the use of an administrative court for such types of violations. It seems that the administrative court would have the appropriate wisdom and power to deal with evil beliefs. It makes me wonder why it is so big.
It doesn't seem that insurance companies "literally … get away with murder and fraud without civil consequence". I guess he really doesn't think this bill actually makes an insurance company murder an administrative issue. It can only be metaphorical language. I wonder if it is supposed to make people feel a certain way.
Oh yes, I read again tomorrow because I love Chips writing. I really think this type was so skillful that it was not in the conversation. It took away from it. Next time, why not take the opportunity to inform and educate, instead of ripping and irritating.
Want to stay updated?
Get the latest insurance news
sent directly to your inbox.