April 18, 2024

Bucks Blog: Forced-Placed Insurance Can Cost Consumers a Bundle

Paul Sullivan writes this week in his Wealth Matters column about force-placed insurance — something that most homeowners don’t know about until their mortgage lender sends them a letter telling them they need it. If the homeowners don’t act quickly, the lender will buy the insurance for them, almost always at a price that’s a lot higher than the market rate.

Experts told Paul that homeowners should immediately deal with the initial letter from a lender saying that insurance is needed. Once the force-placed insurance is imposed, it is much harder, they say, to fight the lender.

While there are no figures on how many times lenders are imposing force-placed insurance, lawyers say they suspect the numbers are higher in the last couple of years.

Have you had any experience with this kind of insurance? Tell us about it below.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=a41bf64b60761c1bcdefe1e8a217f2ab

You’re the Boss Blog: My Health Insurance Rates Just Went Down Again

Staying Alive

The struggles of a business trying to survive.

I got an e-mail last week with my health insurance renewal rates for 2012. (I have written extensively on this subject: on previous rate declines, on the subsequent feedback, on the health care overhaul, and on rates for older workers.) I opened the e-mail with some trepidation, given the general trend of substantial increases every year. Surprise! Another decrease: 6 percent less for single workers, married couples, and families.

Coupled with the decreases we had in 2011, our rates are down 22 percent from their peak in 2010. Single worker policies dropped from $424 a month to $352; family policies dropped from $1,246 a month to $971. Workers pay a third of that amount, and the company picks up the balance. (Except for me. Owners pay for themselves — and get taxed on that amount as income.)

Rates are one thing, sums are another. Here are the annual totals for my company, which employs 14 people. Twelve of them get their coverage through us, the others get it elsewhere. Health insurance will cost the company (i.e. me) $73,476 next year. The employees will pay another $19,260, for a total bill of $92,736. But it would have been much worse if rates had remained where they were in 2010: the total would have been $117,024, with the company paying $92,964 and the employees paying $24,060. The decrease saves the company $19,488, and saves the employees $4,800. That’s real money.

Coincidentally, I received this e-mail yesterday:

Hi Paul,

I know that the post about encouraging small businesses not to hire older workers is from March 2011, but the post really bothered me. I am 50 yrs old and work for a health care company. I can tell you that your rates are based more on your past claims, but please check with your insurance agent.

Being an older worker myself, I would advocate hiring those over 50. There are many factors to consider, such as: how long will a 20 yr old remain with your company — creating costs in hiring and training another employee, how many “sick” days will the 20 yr old incur, and other similar factors. I work with a diverse group of individuals, varying in age. I know that those over 40 yrs have a much different work ethic, which is invaluable in today’s economy. If I had my own business, I would definitely hire those willing to do the work and take the chance on higher health insurance premiums.  

Just something to think about.

Kelly B

Carlisle, PA

Come to think of it, my oldest, sickest worker left us in the fall of 2010. I know that he had a number of health problems (not job related) and that his wife had a hip and knee replacements while he worked for us. It hasn’t been by design, but the new hires I’ve added since then happen to be healthier and younger. We’ve added two single guys in their 20s, and one family guy in his forties, with a wife and three kids under 10.

In her e-mail, Kelly, writes that “your rates are based more on your past claims,” which reinforces something multiple commenters to my earlier threads have said: sick workers will cost you, and the cost can be substantial. My profit for 2010 was $92,155, from $1,516,837 in sales. That’s a 6.07 percent margin. Just changing my health costs from the 2010 rate to the 2012 rate would have increased my profit by more than 21 percent. It appears that the departure of my unwell employee will be of great benefit both for myself and my remaining employees.

Let me be clear: I am not writing about this to help others exploit the system; I am writing about it to help others understand the system. And what a system it is! If one of your employees falls ill, it can be a financial disaster not only for that person, but for you as well as for your other employees. That creates powerful incentives to discriminate against anyone who is likely to be sick: older people, obese people, people who simply look unhealthy. Sure, there are laws against all kinds of discrimination, but we all know it’s not that hard for employers to skirt them if they choose.

I have no solutions to offer, just a strong desire to get out of the health insurance business entirely. What’s happening with those exchanges I’ve been hearing about?

Paul Downs founded Paul Downs Cabinetmakers in 1986. It is based outside of Philadelphia.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f4189700b80bd4f8dfc45ca993f2b090

Business Briefing | Company News: F.D.I.C. Closes Four Banks Burdened by Home Loans

Regulators on Friday closed two banks in Georgia and one each in Florida and Colorado, raising to 84 the number of American banks that have failed this year. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized the four banks. The largest by far was Community Banks of Colorado, based in Greenwood, Colo., with $1.38 billion in assets and $1.33 billion in deposits. Also shuttered were Community Capital Bank, in Jonesboro, Ga.; Decatur First Bank, in Decatur, Ga.; and Old Harbor Bank, in Clearwater, Fla. By this time last year, regulators had shuttered 139 banks.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e9fbf4ec5b61420e703f432304631241

Bucks Blog: Hurricane Insurance Claims: All About Falling Trees

Hurricane Irene knocked a tree onto this house in Exeter, Penn.Associated PressHurricane Irene knocked a tree onto this house in Exeter, Pa.

Now that Hurricane Irene has passed, the thoughts of homeowners turn to filing claims for damage caused by the storm. Several Bucks readers had questions about damage caused by trees, so we spoke with representatives of the Insurance Information Institute for some answers.

For even more details about killer trees, the Institute has created an online video that covers the topic. For definitive answers about your own property, of course, you should check your policy and call your agent or the company that wrote the policy.

Q: Does insurance cover the cost of fallen tree removal, if it does not hit your home?

A. Generally, no. Homeowners insurance covers damage to insured structures, like your house or a detached garage. You’re also covered for resulting damage to any contents, and the cost of removing the tree if it falls on either structure. But, “If it just makes a mess in your backyard, it’s generally not covered,” says Jeanne Salvatore, a spokeswoman for the Institute.

That said, there are always exceptions — and some companies may cover removal of a fallen tree if it blocks, say, a driveway or ramp necessary for a handicapped person to access the property. The best way to find out is to call your agent, she says: “Don’t make an assumption that you’re not covered.”

Q: Does the insurance cover replacement of trees, as well as removal? And what about removal of a tree before the storm, to protect the house from the tree that might fall on it?

A: No and no. Standard homeowners insurance generally covers structures, says Ms. Salvatore. That means if a storm blows over a big oak and it smashes through your roof, the policy pays for a new roof — but not a new oak. (Oddly, though, there may be coverage for damage to trees and shrubs damaged by fire or vandalism, according to the Institute).

And, while taking pre-emptive action to remove a tree might seem prudent, it isn’t covered by your homeowner’s policy, says Michael Barry, an Institute spokesman. (The cost of removing a tree often falls within the typical $500 to $1,000 deductible anyway, he says.)

Q: If my neighbor’s tree falls on my property, who’s responsible?

A: If a tree falls on your house — regardless of where it was growing before the storm — you should file a claim with your own insurance company, Ms. Salvatore says. In some situations, though — if the tree was in poor health, say, or improperly maintained — your insurer may try to collect from your neighbor’s insurance company, through a process called subrogation. If the effort is successful, your company may reimburse you for your deductible, she explains.

Q: What if a tree falls on my car?

A: The comprehensive coverage on your auto policy should cover this, Mr. Barry says.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1337c1af718488c10e8725168c211d0e

Bucks: Tuesday Reading: Rules Set for New Health Insurance Exchanges

July 12

Tuesday Reading: Rules Set for New Health Insurance Exchanges

The government sets standards for new health insurance exchanges, motorists are enraged by camera-issued tickets, repeal vote set for light bulb efficiency and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=1fbf1492036a4db0a3b86051d886f9b2

Bucks: Friday Reading: G.M. Offers Free Insurance in Two States

July 08

Friday Reading: G.M. Offers Free Insurance in Two States

G.M. offers free auto insurance to boost sales in Pacific Northwest, a new hope in cancer treatment falls apart, a housing program targets the unemployed and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=9cbeb58bc7f46e6a76db27926b0631c5

Economix: Man vs. Machine

In the epic battle of man versus machine, machines have a growing price advantage.

As I wrote in a story today, companies’ spending on capital has grown much faster than their spending on labor since the recovery began in June 2009. Spending on equipment and software has risen 25.6 percent in the last seven quarters, while companies’ aggregate spending on employees has risen only 2.2 percent.

DESCRIPTIONSource: Bureau of Economic Analysis, via Haver Analytics

Now, many economists will argue that hiring always lags capital spending, which is generally true. What’s troubling is how wide the gap in spending growth is this time around. In the seven quarters immediately following each of the last 10 recessions, equipment and software spending rose on average 15.6 percent, and labor spending rose on average 8.8 percent.

Somehow, capital spending is growing faster and labor spending is growing more slowly than has been the case in almost every previous recovery on record.

One reason hiring has been so sluggish is that equipment and software prices have been dropping quickly, while labor costs have been rising fast.

Again, this usually happens, but has been especially true in the current recovery. Here’s a chart showing the change in prices for compensation and for equipment and software since the recovery officially began in the second quarter of 2009:

Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis, via Haver Analytics

It may seem strange that the cost of labor is rising so fast. With such a weak economy, it doesn’t seem as if a lot of workers are getting raises. (Are you?)

And technically, employees are not getting much of a raise — at least not in cash. The higher cost of labor is primarily being driven by rising benefits costs and, in particular, rising health insurance costs.

Let’s take another look at that last chart, splitting up the total employee compensation prices into two separate indexes for wages/salaries and for benefits:

DESCRIPTIONBureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis, via Haver Analytics

As you can see, the benefits cost line is quite steep. Even more daunting to employers, it could get even steeper in the years ahead; health care costs are rising sharply, and their costs a year or two from now are very hard to predict.

So it’s no wonder companies are reluctant to invest in new workers when the economy still seems so uncertain.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=8d10e9afb6d9590e6c4a941e84c690fe

Failed Bank Tally Reaches 45 in 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Regulators on Friday shut a small bank in South Carolina, the 45th bank failure this year.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized Atlantic Bank and Trust, based in Charleston, S.C., with $208.2 million in assets and $191.6 million in deposits. First Citizens Bank and Trust, based in Columbia, S.C., agreed to assume its assets and deposits.

The F.D.I.C. and First Citizens Bank agreed to share losses on $141.8 million of Atlantic Bank’s assets. The bank’s failure is expected to cost the deposit insurance fund $36.4 million.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=94a11eb8d4b03c3ffb51b037f3ce03d7

Bucks: Friday Reading: A New App Helps Used-Car Buyers

May 20

Friday Reading: A New App Helps Used-Car Buyers

A new app helps used-car buyers, more scrutiny for health insurance increases, attacking spam and other consumer-focused news from The New York Times.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=144a7e1be2405ebd9032f25f84357769

Bucks: Zipcar’s Liability Insurance: Is It Adequate?

This weekend’s Your Money column, about the liability insurance coverage that Zipcar and Hertz offer their car-sharing customers, ends with a question. After explaining that their policies wouldn’t come close to covering drivers who caused serious harm or death to another person, I wondered whether customers were still comfortable with the coverage limits.

It wasn’t meant to be rhetorical. If you think $300,000 (or much less at Hertz) is plenty, please explain why below. If you’ve already bought extra coverage for yourself because you think Zipcar’s insurance is inadequate, kindly share your reasoning.

And if you can think of a reason Zipcar wouldn’t want to offer extra insurance as an option — make money on it even — please let me know below. The company seems to think that the odds of a big claim are so low that all of its members are content with the current coverage.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=c8fdc62f73b5cda652606a21ef9d2ac0