Most Citizens homeowners in Miami-Dade, Broward will see premiums drop
TALLAHASSEE — Most Miami-Dade and Broward county homeowners with state-run Citizens Property Insurance will see their premiums go down this year, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Wednesday.
In Miami-Dade, 73% of its policyholders will see premiums go down by an average of 6.3%, he said. In Broward, about half of homeowners will see a 4.5% decrease.
'That's something that's very, very meaningful,' DeSantis said during a news conference.
He didn't say what policyholders in Tampa Bay would experience this year.
The surprising announcement, after years of double-digit rate hikes, is the result of state regulators trimming back a bigger rate request by Citizens' board last year.
Citizens' board decided in June to seek an overall 14% rate increase for 2025, the maximum allowed under state law.
The company wasn't seeking a rate decrease anywhere, Citizens CEO Tim Cerio told lawmakers on Tuesday.
But its roughly 173,00 policies Miami-Dade County is a unique situation, he said. Unlike most of the state, the company is more than actuarily sound there, meaning it makes more than enough to cover expected expenses in the county.
Still, the premiums it is charging in Miami-Dade are much better than premiums being charged by private insurers.
Cerio credited the situation to laws passed by the Legislature making it harder to sue insurance companies.
'Miami-Dade was a hotbed of litigation,' Cerio said.
State regulators also ordered Citizens to trim its rates in 2023.
Citizens' Board of Governors is made up of lawyers and business executives appointed by DeSantis and other Republican elected officials.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US regulators push through last-minute delay to new private fund reporting rules
By Chris Prentice NEW YORK (Reuters) -U.S. regulators scrambled on Wednesday to extend a deadline for new data reporting requirements for investment advisers to private funds, just one day before they were due to take effect. The rules, adopted by two U.S. markets regulators in February 2024, will require advisers to disclose more information to regulators in a bid to boost the government's ability to spot risks from private markets that have swelled in size in recent years. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission extended the deadline for compliance to later this year in a 3-1 vote on Wednesday, less than 24 hours before firms had to comply. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission also voted in favor of an extension, marking the second time the regulators decided to push back the deadline after previously postponing it in January. "Additional time is required for dialogue with filers, review of the reasonableness of the data demands, and review of the actual utility of the information collected," SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said during Wednesday's open meeting. Private funds have pressed the SEC to review this rule, among others, and have warned the new requirements are unnecessary and costly. The firms now have until October 1, 2025 to comply. The new data, which includes disclosure of events pointing to significant stress within 72 hours, would be accessible to the Financial Stability Oversight Council, which gathers top financial regulators across the U.S. government to monitor systemic risks. Regulators have cautioned for years that growing private markets could pose increasing risks, particularly as they are more opaque and less vigorously regulated than traditional markets. Federal agencies have begun a push to loosen regulations as part of Republican President Donald Trump's agenda since he took office in late January. "The SEC and other regulators, including FSOC, depend on these detailed data to better comprehend when the private markets may be experiencing turbulence that could affect our entire financial system, because these entities generally operate outside our regulatory purview," said Caroline Crenshaw, the lone Democratic SEC commissioner.
San Francisco Chronicle
40 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. 'Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture,' the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. 'By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
