He said the quiet thing out loud. That’s what he was fired for.
The next person will just keep their mouth shut and stick to the original plan.
In my opinion, he also wasn’t wrong about ego and how many people continue to build and re-build in places with continued natural disasters, then expect the rest of us to continue to bail them out.
Isn’t some disaster aid contingent on rebuilding in the same place?
if it is, i would like that to be corrected for areas that continue to be disaster zones. i would rather pay to help some people move once than rebuild 3 or 4 times each over their lifetimes.
The FEMA flood insurance has some requirements about flood prevention activities to continue being eligible. This is just regular old private insurance though, so it’s not the general public paying the price. At some point government might step in to backstop or subsidize it though.
And yet…
More than 2,100 properties across the U.S. enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program have flooded and been rebuilt more than 10 times since 1978, according to a new analysis of insurance data by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). One home in Batchelor, Louisiana has flooded 40 times over the past four decades, receiving $428,379 in insurance payments. More than 30,000 properties in the program, run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have flooded multiple times over the years.
Ah, seems reasonable. Yeah, even paying for rebuilding with better materials and methods for the disasters might be even cheaper than moving large groups of existing people. But, please stop building stick and paper houses in these places lol
Only fired because he got caught.
… wtf do people think happens at boardroom meetings?
Is it even a surprise that a home insurance company is planning on raising rates… in a collapsing country, where about 1/3 of homes are no longer viable for relevant insurance from 2030 onward, due to climate change?
This is only the beginning.
Is it not common sense that if we pool our money together to cover accidents then the people who are more prone to accidents, therefore pulling more money out of the pool than others, should be contributing more? How do people think rates are calculated?
It should also be a big clue: If insurance companies don’t want to take your money, you are doing something dumb. Don’t build stick houses in wildfire zones.
Probably fired for getting recorded rather than saying anything not openly discussed at HQ. And they’re kind of not even wrong.
We build housing in disaster prone areas and then get surprised when insurance costs an arm and a leg or just pulls out altogether. And when the risk profile can’t even support a super expensive policy we have the government take it all on like those flood zones in the South.
Insurance shouldn’t really be for profit (or at least shouldn’t profit from unspent payment funds), but some of these disaster zones are just going to become disaster zones again, especially as we keep fucking up the climate. People are bad at gauging risk, so insurance is often the only thing there to hit them with the cold hard truth about how likely they are to lose everything in the next X years and maybe make them realize it’s just not a good place to build new homes.
His comments appear to be more of a reflection on our current system of governance and allocation of resources than giving away the secrets of a greedy corporation. But at this point criticizing our system of governance is a punishable offense, so it tracks.
If expenses are higher for the thing you’re selling than regulation will allow you to charge for them, then of course you don’t sell the thing. Should we use for-profit institutions as our safety nets? No, but it is what we’ve got and the scenario is a lose-lose in our current system.
My adblocker blocks that video so here’s a YouTube one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmk9EZex4DQ
“Our people look at this and say, ‘S—, we’ve got like maybe $5 billion that we’re short if something happens.’ We’ll go to the Department of Insurance and say, ‘We’re overexposed here, you have to let us catch up our [rates]’. … He’ll say ‘Nah.’ And we’ll say, ‘OK, then we are going to cancel these policies,’ ” Kirkpatrick said in the video, recorded surreptitiously in January after the fires.
The company has estimated the Pacific Palisades, Eaton and other fires on Jan. 7 will cost it more than $7 billion, though with reinsurance its net losses will be closer to $600 million.
So I don’t get it, what did he say that was wrong?
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic. They’re extorting the insurance agency. They’re basically saying that they’re going to drop everyone’s policies if the insurance regulator for the state doesn’t allow them to raise the rates. They’re also vastly overestimating how much they will have to pay out because their insurance will be paying State Farm. It’s a mob deal?
“It would be a shame if we couldn’t insure half your state.”
Or Alternatively, those places keep going up in flames and aren’t suitable for humans. Like a bunch of flood zones or the coasts. At a certain point it may not be reasonable to insure a place.
Ya. Nothing this guy said was shocking. People building mcmansions in beautiful disaster prone areas? Insurance companies have been trying to leave these markets for a while, because they can read the writing on the wall.
Disaster after disaster and we rebuild the same shit in the same place and then have the audacity to act shocked it all happened again. Not to mention building single family detached houses in endless suburbs is basically salting the earth.
We all need to have a good look inward and decide what we’re actually entitled to, or circumstance is gonna have a word with the fates. And we know what capricious callous bitches they are…
Uh, this is ridiculous. Rate hikes are an actuarially substantiated fact of life and they don’t need to be discussed in a secure room. The headline is a disaster.
