Report uncovers absurd tactics used by home insurers in disaster-hit state: 'The people ... need answers'
With the rising risk of extreme weather events in Florida, home insurance rates have gone through the roof. Meanwhile, the insurance market is suffering a meltdown and claiming huge losses of profit.
However, a 2022 report shared by the Tampa Bay Times and Miami Herald showed that while Florida insurance companies were complaining about profit losses, in reality, their parent companies and affiliates were making billions.
The report found that at the beginning of the homeowner's insurance crisis in Florida, between 2017 and 2019, insurance companies said they lost $432 million in profits. The companies used this profit loss to justify raising their rates astronomically.
While Florida insurance companies claimed considerable losses in profit, they were moving money from their coffers to their affiliate companies and shareholders, who were making bank.
Affiliate companies reported a total of $1.8 billion in net income, while insurers paid their shareholders around $680 million in dividends.
The author of the report concluded some insurers in Florida took so much money from their own companies that they defied state regulations.
The result was insurers who were financially weak and sometimes unable to pay out on homeowner claims.
Tampa Bay Times shared comments from Doug Quinn, the executive director of the American Policyholder Association, who said, "These companies are crying poverty in order to raise premiums or justify insolvency: 'It's litigation, it's fraud.' This is money shifting from their left pocket to the right, and crying poverty while their right pocket bulges."
Human activity, such as the burning of dirty energy, makes global temperatures rise. Oceans take in approximately 93% of the extra energy caused by this overheating of the planet, according to a Climate Science Special Report.
The warming of oceans has not only been linked to more intense hurricanes but has resulted in sea levels rising. Rising sea levels create storm surges, leading to increased flooding further inland in coastal areas.
Do you think America is in a housing crisis?
Definitely
Not sure
No way
Only in some cities
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
Add to that the growing population living in coastal areas in the United States, and you have a recipe for disaster. Hurricanes and flooding can wreck homes, vehicles, and more, which makes homeowners insurance all the more vital.
However, with insurance companies unable to pay claims or outright dropping coverage in high-risk coastal areas (all while they claim profit loss while making billions), coastal communities are more at risk than ever.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Democratic lawmakers in Florida are calling for Governor Ron DeSantis to gather a statewide grand jury to investigate this matter.
They are also asking House Speaker Daniel Perez to put together a committee to determine why lawmakers never received this report and look further into the issue.
As House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell said in a statement shared by the Times, "This is outrageous, and the people of Florida need answers."
Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
US States Seek To Ban Chinese Citizens From Buying Land, Property
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Some U.S. states are attempting to ban Chinese citizens from buying land and property, amid souring diplomatic relations between the countries. By 2024, more than two thirds of states had enacted or considered laws limiting or barring foreign land ownership including states that specifically mention China by name, according to POLITICO. According to the non-profit membership organization the Committee of 100, in total 27 states have considered this kind of legislation. However, the group has not shared a list of those states. Newsweek has rounded up a non-exhaustive list of states that have been involved in this kind of legislation, based on publicly available information. Some states do not name China explicitly, but name foreign nations that would likely include China. A number of US stakes have advanced legislation to ban some land sales by foreign nationals and so-called "foreign adversaries." A number of US stakes have advanced legislation to ban some land sales by foreign nationals and so-called "foreign adversaries." Flourish Why It Matters There has been a wave of concern over Chinese land purchases in the United States, some of which have taken place close to military bases. This comes amid soaring tensions between the U.S. and China including trade clashes between the two giants and national security concerns. However, as of USDA data accurate to 2023, Chinese investors own land in the U.S. equivalent to roughly twice the size of the footprint of New York City. What To Know A number of states have considered legislation on the issue. In May, the Texas legislature passed a bill to ban people tied to the governments of China, North Korea, Russia and Iran from purchasing land in the state. In January, Republican senators in Arkansas introduced the Not One More Inch or Acre Act which would prohibit any Chinese citizen, entity or foreign person acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from purchasing public or private real estate in the U.S. On Tuesday, Arizona's Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill to prevent the People's Republic of China from buying a 30 percent stake or more in land near military bases and other strategic assets. Meanwhile, Florida passed a bill to prohibit citizens from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria from owning agricultural land or property near military sites in 2023. Similar legislation has been passed in South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Nebraska, Virginia, Utah, Iowa, West Virginia and Montana. Other states are considering legislation or bills regarding foreign nations' ability to purchase land including Ohio, Michigan and Georgia. What People Are Saying Speaking to Newsweek, Michael McFaul, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, said: "Not every Chinese citizen is an agent of the Communist Party of China. Many of China's most successful entrepreneurs, engineers, and academics—especially those living and working in the United States—loathe the Chinese Communist Party. U.S. government officials must develop more sophisticated policies for decreasing the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in the United States that do not treat all Chinese citizens as enemies of America." Cole Hefner, a Texas Republican state representative, said of Texas' bill: "Senate Bill 17 will counter this threat and make Texas a leader in state security. We cannot, we will not, allow oppressive regimes who actively seek to do harm to cease control and dictate their terms over our economy, our supply chains, our daily lives, our critical infrastructure for our food supply." Advocacy group Asian Texans for Justice opposed the Texas bill, saying it revives "a shameful chapter in American history—when Asian immigrants were banned from owning land." What Happens Next Texas' bill will now go to the state's governor, who has indicated he will support it. The success of other bills as well as whether other states will advance legislation pertaining to the issue remains to be seen.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Shoppers are wary of digital shelf labels, but a study found they don't lead to price surges
Digital price labels, which are rapidly replacing paper shelf tags at U.S. supermarkets, haven't led to demand-based pricing surges, according to a new study that examined five years' worth of prices at one grocery chain. But some shoppers, consumer advocates and lawmakers remain skeptical about the tiny electronic screens, which let stores change prices instantly from a central computer instead of having workers swap out paper labels by hand. 'It's corporations vs. the humans, and that chasm between us goes further and further,' said Dan Gallant, who works in sports media in Edmonton, Canada. Gallant's local Loblaws supermarket recently switched to digital labels. Social media is filled with warnings that grocers will use the technology to charge more for ice cream if it's hot outside, hike the price of umbrellas if it's raining or to gather information about customers . Democratic U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania fired off a letter to Kroger last fall demanding to know whether it would use its electronic labels as part of a dynamic pricing strategy . Lawmakers in Rhode Island and Maine have introduced bills to limit the use of digital labels. In Arizona , Democratic state Rep. Cesar Aguilar recently introduced a bill that would ban them altogether. The bill hasn't gotten a hearing, but Aguilar said he's determined to start a conversation about digital labels and how stores could abuse them. 'Grocery stores study when people go shopping the most. And so you might be able to see a price go down one day and then go up another day,' Aguilar told The Associated Press. Researchers say those fears are misplaced. A study published in late May found 'virtually no surge pricing' before or after electronic shelf labels were adopted. The study was authored by Ioannis Stamatopoulos of the University of Texas, Austin, Robert Evan Sanders of the University of California, San Diego and Robert Bray of Northwestern University The researchers looked at prices between 2019 and 2024 at an unnamed grocery chain than began using digital labels in October 2022. They found that temporary price increases affected 0.005% of products on any given day before electronic shelf labels were introduced, a share that increased by only 0.0006 percentage points after digital labels were installed. The study also determined that discounts were slightly more common after digital labels were introduced. Economists have long wondered why grocery prices don't change more often, according to Stamatopoulos. If bananas are about to expire, for example, it makes sense to lower the price on them. He said the cost of having workers change prices by hand could be one issue. But there's another reason: Shoppers watch grocery prices closely, and stores don't want to risk angering them. 'Selling groceries is not selling a couch. It's not a one-time transaction and you will never see them again,' Stamatopoulos said. 'You want them coming to the store every week.' Electronic price labels aren't new. They've been in use for more than a decade at groceries in Europe and some U.S. retailers, like Kohl's. But they've been slow to migrate to U.S. grocery stores. Only around 5% to 10% of U.S. supermarkets now have electronic labels, compared to 80% in Europe, said Amanda Oren, vice president of industry strategy for North American grocery at Relex Solutions, a technology company that helps retailers forecast demand. Oren said cost is one issue that has slowed the U.S. rollout. The tiny screens cost between $5 and $20, Oren said, but every product a store sells needs one, and the average supermarket has 100,000 or more individual products. Still, the U.S. industry is charging ahead. Walmart , the nation's largest grocer and retailer, hopes to have digital price labels at 2,300 U.S. stores by 2026. Kroger is expanding the use of digital labels this year after testing them at 20 stores. Whole Foods is testing the labels in nearly 50 stores. Companies say electronic price labels have tremendous advantages. Walmart says it used to take employees two days to change paper price labels on the 120,000 items it has in a typical store. With digital tags, it takes a few minutes. The labels can also be useful. Some have codes shoppers can scan to see recipes or nutrition information. Instacart has a system in thousands of U.S. stores, including Aldi and Schnucks, that flashes a light on the digital tag when Instacart shoppers are nearby to help them find products. Ahold Delhaize's Albert Heijn supermarket chain in the Netherlands and Belgium has been testing an artificial intelligence-enabled tool since 2022 that marks down prices on its digital labels every 15 minutes for products nearing expiration. The system has reduced more than 250 tons of food waste annually, the company said. But Warren and Casey are skeptical. In their letter to Kroger, the U.S. senators noted a partnership with Microsoft that planned to put cameras in grocery aisles and offer personalized deals to shoppers depending on their gender and age. In its response, Kroger said the prices shown on its digital labels were not connected to any sort of facial recognition technology. It also denied surging prices during periods of peak demand. 'Kroger's business model is built on a foundation of lowering prices to attract more customers,' the company said. Aguilar, the Arizona lawmaker, said he also opposes the transition to digital labels because he thinks they will cost jobs. His constituents have pointed out that grocery prices keep rising even though there are fewer workers in checkout lanes, he said. 'They are supposed to be part of our community, and that means hiring people from our community that fill those jobs,' Aguilar said. But Relex Solutions' Oren said she doesn't think cutting labor costs is the main reason stores deploy digital price tags. 'It's about working smarter, not harder, and being able to use that labor in better ways across the store rather than these very mundane, repetitive tasks,' she said. ___ AP Writers Anne D'Innocenzio in New York and Sejal Govindarao in Phoenix contributed.
New York Post
6 hours ago
- New York Post
Soaking the rich — as Mamdani and other lefties want —won't pay for a supersized NYC gov't
Mayoral candidate and Queens Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani vaulted into contention in this month's Democratic primary by pledging to supersize city government. 'He knows exactly how to pay for it, too,' his campaign brags. Does he, though? Mamdani's platform — free child care, more public housing and an end to bus fares or CUNY tuition, just to name a few — wouldn't come cheap. Advertisement New Yorkers can have all of it, he promises, for the bargain-basement price of $10 billion in new revenues — less than a tenth of the current city budget. Mamdani is very much lowballing his agenda's price tag. Yet even if he weren't, he still wouldn't likely be able to deliver. Advertisement Most of his plans rely on a pair of tax hikes on corporations and millionaire earners, totaling $9 billion. He doesn't have authority to implement either. Should his cocktail of social-media savvy and socialism land him in Gracie Mansion, he'd need Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers to OK these 'revenue raisers.' New York's local governments, the city included, can't set their own personal or business income-tax rates. Between the city's 1975 brush with insolvency, and its more recent fiscal profligacy, that's understandable. Here's another good reason: Candidates sometimes don't understand themselves how taxes work — and Mamdani is clearly one of them. Advertisement Mamdani regularly compares the top state corporate tax rates of New York (7.25%) and New Jersey (11.5%). These are essentially the state tax rates on businesses profits related to their activity in a state. Mamdani says he'd 'match' New Jersey's rate. On the one hand, that would be a windfall—for Albany, which collects the state corporate tax, not for New York City, where most is generated. Yet Mamdani doesn't get that New York City's biggest firms already pay far more than they would on the other side of the Hudson. Before anyone cuts a check to Albany, city businesses pay the Business Corporation Tax, at least 6.5% for small businesses and as much as 9%. On their remaining income, companies pay the state Corporation Franchise Tax, plus a surcharge to support the MTA. Advertisement All-in, the top state-local rate for businesses in the city is generally just over 17.4%. For them, 'matching' New Jersey would be a meaty tax cut. But say Albany implemented Mamdani's $5 billion hike (after all, lawmakers pushed unsuccessfully for a smaller corporate tax increase this year). That would push the top combined corporate tax rate to a stratospheric 22%. Nor would the proceeds flow automatically to the five boroughs. It would still be 'Albany's' money. Mamdani would need to persuade lawmakers and the governor to spend the proceeds his way. He may find his friends in Albany aren't so friendly when money's involved. Compare that to North Carolina, which is phasing out its corporate tax. It's no coincidence that state has been scooping up new corporate headquarters. Or Pennsylvania, which is in the process of reducing its top corporate rate from 10% percent in 2022, to 8% this year, toward the goal of 5% in 2031. Soak-the-rich rhetoric aside, even Albany can't ignore the explosion of remote work and the danger of pushing major employers to shift operations or direct expansions elsewhere. Advertisement This isn't the only facet of tax policy Mamdani doesn't get. His other big tax increase would have city residents with incomes over $1 million pay the city an extra 2% of their earnings (on top of their Medicare, Social Security, paid family leave and state and federal income taxes). A growing body of data show people with high incomes and residences in other states limit their time in New York to reduce their exposure to the bigger bite taken by state taxes. Here's yet another wrinkle: New York taxes people on their activity in the state, even if they don't live here. By contrast, since 1999, the city levies an income tax only on its residents — and, as with the business taxes, only with Albany's blessing. Advertisement Plenty of people tolerate this extra tax, which tops out at just under 3.9%. But a two-point jump would measurably affect behavior. A couple making $1 million would avoid about $53,000 in city taxes by moving to Westchester or Nassau — up considerably from the $35,000 they would save now. That's effectively an $18,000 bonus for every millionaire earner who decamps for the 'burbs. Advertisement If Mamdani prevails, his followers will abruptly encounter fiscal realities they are ill-equipped to manage — mainly because they've been told to ignore them. Ken Girardin is a fellow of the Manhattan Institute.
