Bennett calls for insurance commish to resign
Sen. Mike Bennett wants Florida's insurance commissioner to resign. In a letter to Gov. Charlie Crist, Bennett says Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty was dishonest and misleading in his promise not to lobby against Bennett's bill (HB1171) that allows large insurance companies to raise rates without state approval. Bennett's call for resignation comes after McCarty sent Crist a letter recently urging him to veto HB 1171, which is aimed at keeping and luring large insurance companies like State Farm to Florida. Crist hasn't received the bill but it's expected to land on his desk within the next few weeks.
Read the McCarty letter here.
*
From the writers of the St. Petersburg Times, The Buzz offers the latest news in Florida politics. This is a public forum sponsored and maintained by the St. Petersburg Times. When you post comments here, what you say becomes public and could appear in the newspaper. You are not engaging in private communication with candidates or Times staffers.
May 21, 2009
Via email: Kevin.McCarty@floir.com
Dear Commissioner McCarty:
I have a copy of your May 14, 2009, letter to Governor Crist regarding House Bill 1171. To say that I am disappointed is the understatement of the year. To be blunt, I am angry.
I filed Senate Bill 2036 on February 24, 2009. As session approached and serious consideration of property insurance legislation began, you and I met, and I had several visits with your staff. We discussed a number of issues including the Citizens rate issue, the CAT Fund, and the State Farm property insurance withdrawal plan. I shared with you information from State Farm agents indicating that when State Farm customers shopped around for property insurance, the rates from Citizens and the domestic carriers were often higher—sometimes two or three times higher—than the ones currently being paid by State Farm customers. You acknowledged the validity of this information, and we discussed potential solutions—solutions that might give State Farm property customers the option to stay with State Farm.
The primary solution we discussed was a result of your suggestions and encouragement, and was modeled after the “consent-to-rate law” applicable to commercial insurance. After our discussion, I reached out to others to ask them about this law. While my original bill created a “non-assessable” policy exempt from rate regulation, the revised bill—crafted with your input—it eliminated the “non-assessable” concept and went with the consent to rate option. As the bill developed, your office suggested that only well-capitalized companies should be able to participate. To that end, the bill only applies to companies with large amounts of surplus, namely either $500 million in surplus, $200 million in surplus with a 2 to 1 net premium to surplus ratio, or non-profit companies with $150 million in surplus. Your office also suggested that companies should not be able to buy reinsurance from the CAT Fund, and a change to prevent the purchase of the TICL coverage from the CAT Fund was made.
During the week of April 20, 2009, when my bill was scheduled for consideration in the Senate Ways and Means Committee, two representatives from your office met in my office to review proposed amendments. I made it clear I would accept no changes to the bill that were not approved by your office. Two amendments in particular are noteworthy. First, one amendment was designed to strike the correct balance and design a surplus requirement that was large enough to increase claims-paying capacity in Florida, but not too large so as to prevent all companies from practically using the deregulated policy option. Second, we worked to craft a “consent form” that would allow a comparison between the deregulated policy and Citizens, or a rate regulated policy. Looking back, this meeting would have been a perfect opportunity to convey any opposition to the bill or to identify any concerns about its effect on consumers, the marketplace, and or State Farm’s withdrawal plan, as you contend in your letter to the Governor. Instead, your staff worked cooperatively to collaborate on amendments.
In the House, your office was even more outspoken as to your neutrality. Specifically, on March 27, 2009, Belinda Miller, in front of the Insurance, Business & Financial Affairs Committee, said:
“I understand the idea. The idea is have a set of policies that are not regulated, and to give people the option to buy that if they want to, and the only concern I think that that poses aside from the fact that the rates are going to be higher is that when you take policies out of the Citizens’ assessment base, then Citizens doesn’t have as large a stream of assessment to rely on for bonding purposes, and I’m sure they can speak to this, but it may impact their ability to bond, and make it more expensive for them to bond, or maybe not allow them to bond as much, and they can speak to that better than I can. But this is a public policy decision and I understand what you’re trying to do, and if that’s what you want to do I think it is likely to lead to significant rate increases for the people who participate but if the people want to buy it then that’s certainly a public policy decision that you can make… Since State Farm made their announcement that they were going to withdraw from the state, we’ve gotten hundreds of letters. Some of the letters are mad and say you ought to just make them take their auto and kick them out of the state. Others though say ‘don’t help me anymore, don’t help me, I’ve gotten enough help from you, if I want to pay more and stay with a very large insurer as opposed to going to a Florida domestic [insurer] or Citizens and paying less, leave me alone and let me do that.’ This would address that group of people. I don’t know how big that group is, I don’t know how many people would actually pay significantly more, I think that the purpose for the companies wanting to get out from under the rate regulation for excessiveness is to charge more, I don’t think you can assume it’s to charge less …It’s a public policy decision and if you want to exclude these large companies from rate regulation there may actually be people who buy those policies and want those policies, and that’s what you’d be choosing to do if you passed this bill. Without acknowledging that artificially low rates are a current situation, I think it would be interesting to see how many people buy a policy that is not assessable, not regulated, but from a large company, and that is more expensive than other options they have in the market.” (Emphasis added).
The only objection from Ms. Miller, other than the obvious rate impact, relates to the “non-assessable concept.” That provision, with your encouragement, was removed from the final bill. Notably, Ms. Miller made no mention that my bill would “disrupt the effort to build an increasingly competitive insurance marketplace” or of a 2002 commercial consent to initiative by State Farm. I suspect that she did not because these are trumped up, and irrelevant “excuses” that you have come up with after the fact.
On April 14, 2009 in front of the General Government Policy Council, and in response to a question encompassing the comprehensive issues facing this state’s property insurance market, Mr. Monte Stevens testified:
“I think it is the intent of the bill sponsor that the market would regulate those prices for excessiveness…I can tell you that if nothing is done, if no legislation is passed and the status quo remains stagnant, Citizens is required by statute to file with our office an actuarial sound rate to be implemented in January of this year. So basically the status quo would get you to an actuarially sound Citizens rate in a fairly short amount of time. The public policy question for the Legislature is what rate impact can folks swallow immediately, and whether not it’s appropriate to phase in that rate increase, but that’s in a separate bill, and I don’t want to speculate on whether or not there should be a companion measure dealing with the adequacy of Citizens rates.”
Again, the general tone of the testimony was that public policy is for the Legislature to establish and Mr. Stevens acted honorably in so stating.
On April 27, 2009, during the last days of this year’s regular Legislative Session, Senate Bill 2036 was on the Senate Special Order Calendar. House Bill 1171 had already passed the House 105 to 13, and I thought that all the issues with these companion bills had been ironed out and resolved, especially since Representative Proctor had recently communicated to me that you had not relayed any information to him in regard to his bill. Then out of the blue, I was ambushed by a press release from your office opposing the bill. Commissioner, I almost fell out of my chair, but before I lost my balance, I reached for the telephone to call you on your cell phone. As you know, we had a very frank conversation in which I expressed my displeasure with you and your office for “working” with me in what I thought was an honest and good faith exercise, only to have your office issue a petty and negative press release. I explained to you that governmental agencies should not be issuing press releases on matters of public policy, over which the Legislature has exclusive jurisdiction, and that you should have had the courtesy to come visit with me face-to-face to discuss your concerns. Honestly, given your office’s preference for knee-jerk press releases instead of thorough communication and collaborative working relationships, it seems no small wonder to me as to why property insurers are leaving this state. You apologized, and acknowledged that your staff should have come to see me, and you also pledged to withdraw the press release from your office’s website.
Within a day or so after the press release, and after you had sent me a hand-written note of apology, you asked me for a meeting and came to my office. During the meeting you told me that you would not oppose the bill, and further, that you would not ask the Governor to veto the bill. My understanding was that you would let the legislative process continue, and refrain from using inflammatory rhetoric when communicating with the Governor in regards to this bill. Unfortunately, you did not keep your word to me.
The second ambush occurred recently (while I am on vacation). To my dismay, I received an email copy of a letter from you to Governor Crist, essentially asking the Governor to veto House Bill 1171. (Note: I was not even given the courtesy of a telephone call from you or a copy of the letter.)
Before concluding, I do want to comment briefly on the substance of what you allege in your letter. First, you point out that rates may go up if HB 1171 is signed. I take issue with this. The consumer will decide whether to buy from one of the deregulated companies. If the rates are too high, the consumer can purchase insurance from one of the 40 companies you claim to be available at regulated prices. In addition, price is not the only factor that consumers look to in selecting an insurance company. The only thing worse than higher rates is worthless insurance that does not pay at claim time. I am concerned that some of these “40 companies” you tout are nothing more than the second coming of the now defunct “Poe Insurance Group.”
Second, you claim that HB 1171 will disrupt the competitive market place. All of the major household brands have retracted or left our state and your actions have done nothing to attract real claims paying capacity and or competition to Florida. Competition is the best consumer protection measure available, and we sure don’t see much competition for property insurance in my part of the state.
Third, you continue your unproductive assaults on State Farm. One would think that you would realize soon that your unprofessionalism has contributed to seeing over $8 billion of claims paying capacity leave Florida, not to mention the departure of one of America’s most respected companies. Fourth, you raise the 2002 commercial condominium consent-to-rate situation. That example is valueless. State Farm made a business decision to re-deploy its capital to serve homeowners, rather than commercial condominium properties. State Farm is primarily a personal lines company and not a commercial insurer. To claim the current bill will result in the same situation is disingenuous. At multiple public hearings, State Farm has indicated that it must move forward with its current plans. At the same time, the Company has stated that if a truly transformational and permanent change in Florida’s regulatory system occurred, it may be able to take another look at Florida’s property insurance market. With HB 1495 and HB 1171 the Legislature has tried to move in a direction that will encourage well capitalized and long-standing companies to do more business in our state. Your actions are undermining our efforts and putting the people of Florida at risk.
Finally, you assert that the current law allows for consent-to-rate or surplus lines. The consent-to-rate law only applies to the commercial insurance business and, even so, only to a very small portion of a company’s book of business. The surplus lines option is not viable because it is only available for use when there is no other market. The existence of Citizens and the domestic carriers makes the surplus lines option unworkable in major segments of the state.
Commissioner, I find your manner of behavior totally unprofessional. You and your office appeared to work in good faith on the legislation, only to issue a last minute press release in opposition.
Second, when I called you about the press release, you blame your staff, rather than taking personal responsibility. I find this incompetent management at best and cowardly at worst.
Third, you come to my office in an apparent effort to reconcile, but then continue to work against the legislation. I subsequently find out that you reconcile only because you are worried about your office’s budget being cut by the Legislature in the final days of the session. I find this deceitful conduct by you and your office.
Fourth, you told me during the meeting that you will not ask for a “veto” of the bill, and then you write a letter that is essentially a request for a veto by the Governor. You say one thing and then do the exact opposite.
The members of Legislature have an expectation of honesty and good faith dealing from those who present information to the Legislature. Such information is used to develop public policy. This is especially true from agencies of state government, and absolutely true for senior leadership of those state agencies.
In conclusion, due to all as stated above, I find your professional behavior reprehensible. I am asking you to take the honorable action and resign from your position as Commissioner of Insurance. My colleagues and I are no longer able to trust your word. Additionally, should you not act honorably and resign, I am calling on the Governor to discharge you from your position as both a service to the Legislature and the citizens of Florida.
Sincerely,
Michael S. “Mike” Bennett
/cre
Cc: Governor Charlie Crist
The Honorable Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer
The Honorable Jeff Atwater, Senate President
Chairman, Banking & Insurance – Senator Garrett Richter
Representative William L. “Bill” Proctor
Posted by: Bennett Response | May 21, 2009 at 05:03 PM
It's not your office Senator, it belongs to the Citizens of Florida who simply loan it to your sorry behind.
Posted by: Angryaswell | May 21, 2009 at 05:23 PM
Way go McCarty!!!!!
The Insurance Commissioner is the only person in Tallahassee who is the last back stop before insurance companies GUT and STICK IT TO working class floridians
VETO THE BILL CHARLIE!
Nice Job McCarty!
Posted by: Billy Jo Jim Bob | May 21, 2009 at 05:28 PM
There go the Republicans again, screwing the people of this state. Now thats a headliner bill I have not seen on any front page of a newspaper. Bennett, you are pushing it. The R's are killing themselves. I am calling the Governor and will be asking him to veto another garbage bill.
Way to Go Mcarty. Thank you for trying to stop this insurance industry giveaway. Is this Bennetts way of collecting money from the big insurers for his CCEs (those special committees that allow them to raise BIG money), that will help him in his bid for Senate President and to overthrow doofy Haridopeolis? While I think Haridopeolis is a lightweight no substance rightwing fruitcake, This is not a good thing for Bennett to do. Dockery is looking like the best choice for President every day.
Posted by: a | May 21, 2009 at 05:36 PM
When will folks realize the Florida legislature works for the special interests who bankroll their campaigns--not for the public interest.
This will never change without public financing of their campaigns--on both the state and federal levels.
It will be far cheaper for us in the long run.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 21, 2009 at 05:37 PM
McCarty seems to have stepped in it here.
Posted by: Gator(R) | May 21, 2009 at 05:39 PM
Times, why didn't you post Bennett's letter rather than just McCarty's? Please be balanced about this please, especially as Bennett's letter (sent today) is actually today's news while McCarty's is a week old.
Posted by: d | May 21, 2009 at 05:39 PM
If Gov. Crist vetos that bill millions of Floridians will lose their homeowner's insurance coverage.
There are not enough insurance companies in Florida 1. to assume millions of policy holders that
Statefarm has as customers and 2. the ones that do write policies here can't come up with the financial where with all if EVEN a Category 2 hurricane hit Florida.
Floridians need Statefarm Insurance. In North FL the rates would only be raised 6%. That is insignificant compared to having NO insurance coverage, or some fly by night company without the ($) means to cover damages if something serious did happen. Other companies in FL are more than double the rate we pay at Statefarm and we'd have less coverage for the money.
If Gov. Crist vetos this bill he will set off a firestorn which will effectively galvanize the disenfranschised FL homeowners to his opponents, Democrat or Republican's in the U.S. Senate race.
Since the governor doesn't own a home, and never has, he should carefully weigh how critical this issue is to all Florida homeowners and sign this bill into law.
Kevin you need a new job.
You've lost the true persective on this issue and have become a poltical pawn misreprenting (lying) the serious consequences of Statefarm pulling out of Florida. Not only for millions homeowner's loss of their insurance coverage, but the thousands of people who will lose their jobs and the means to provide an income for their families.
Shame on you for your incompetent recommendation to Gov. Crist. It is false, completely misrepresented and irresponsible.
Posted by: Kevin you are wrong | May 21, 2009 at 05:49 PM
Bennett, did you write that letter while in a hot tub with the insurance lobbyist??????? You know, kind of like the telecom bill you pushed after getting caught in the hot tub with the telecom lobbyist.
How dare you think you can stop the man from doing his job? Did you just think that kind of response would get you points with no one questioning the legislation? Your "unregulated-equals more competition" mantra is pure political bulls-it.
Your blatant arrogance and your elitist attitude is too much to believe. It is so obvious that you have forgotten this political system belongs to the people. You are not the owner. I think your bill is a total give away to that big insurance industry that gives you all so much in contributions, and I am not talking about those piddly $500.00 dollar checks. You need a lesson in humility. GOVERNOR CRIST PLEASE KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!. These legislators have gotten very big heads and thay dont remember the people they represent. GOVERNOR CRIST PLEASE VETO THIS PIECE OF C R A P BILL AND SPARE THE PEOPLE FROM THE MAKE BELIEVE "THIS IS GOOD FOR YOU" GARBAGE. Please help the people. This does not promote real competition. This is to line Bennetts CCE's with insurance dollars. Senator Bennett, perhaps its time for you to resign as the people of this state can no longer trust you. The MANY bills you have had this yearm that you think are funny or cute, are a direct slap in the face to all Floridians except the ones that can provide you with the contributions you need to get you where you want to be politically, yet you are to stupid to see that we see it. RESIGN. We have had enough of your kind.
Posted by: An outraged citizen | May 21, 2009 at 06:09 PM
I have to agree with 5:49. I have been dropped 3 times by insurance companies. I think I am covered by 'Fred's Insurance R Us'. I have no idea whether he will be able to pay if my house is destroyed, he hasn't been in business long enough to be rated - some workaround rating.
I am not sure how much more I would pay for a 'real' insurance company, but I imagine it would have some value to me. The house would be the bank's problem, as values have dropped so much, but it would be nice to know my personal belongings would be covered.
Posted by: Gator(R) | May 21, 2009 at 06:16 PM
Scare tactics are all around us. I say let the big insurers go and others will fill their spot. They want it all. They want high premiums, they want to be deregulated so they can just raise your rates whenever they please, and they NEVER EVER want to pay you when they should for the coverage you pay for. Let the crooks go. There are many others that would come. Governor Crist, veto this anti-consumer scare tactic horrible bill. Thank you Commissioner Mcarty. I would bever have known what the legislature was up to.
Posted by: let them go! | May 21, 2009 at 06:17 PM
6:09
It doesn't appear the Senator has problems with McCarty or OIR disagreeing with legislation, it is with him apparently lying or deceiving him about his intentions regarding the bill.
If the bill was objectionable and he was going to urge the Governor to veto it, he should have made that clear all along. Pretty well documented that he and his staff didn't.
Senators don't write this kind of letter on a whim, McCarty burned him.
Posted by: Gator(R) | May 21, 2009 at 06:25 PM
There will be one question I will ask of Alex Sink and Bill McCollum, will you keep Kevin McCarty if elected?
That will decide my vote.
Posted by: w | May 21, 2009 at 06:40 PM
6:25 Its real easy to say that now, first you nor I were in that meeting and we don't know what was said and what each wanted to hear. I also know first hand how hard it is to address arrogant and power crazy legislators especially Senators. Just look at JD Alexander who openly extorts and pressures to get his way. When they want it done their way, they don't compromise, they demand. Either case, the bill sucks for consumers. Gov. needs to veto this junk.
Posted by: ! | May 21, 2009 at 06:43 PM
6:40 U r right. If either one of them say they won't keep him, they will not get my vote. We need more who will look out for the people and not use their positions to gain the financing they need to obtain another office or position. Thank you McCarty.
Bennett RESIGN!
Posted by: Disgusted with the insurance companies | May 21, 2009 at 06:47 PM
There will be one question I will ask of Alex Sink and Bill McCollum, will you keep Kevin McCarty if elected?
That will decide my vote.
Posted by: w | May 21, 2009 at 06:49 PM
6:17 you are wrong, if any homeowner doesn't want Statefarm Insurance they don't have to buy coverage from them.
They can purchase and look elsewhere.
If people are not watching what is going on now they will certainly pay attention if Gov Crist's veto causes them to lose their homeowner's coverage.
This bill needs to be signed into law for millions of Floridians.
No one can force you to buy insurance from a company you do not want, unless a reckless action by the state/or governor causes your company to no longer be available for you.
Posted by: Kevin needs to go | May 21, 2009 at 06:51 PM
Perhaps Senator Mike Bennett is the one who should resign?
Posted by: Paul D. Harvill | May 21, 2009 at 07:01 PM
6:51 Sure, this is just a lie, just like the Doctors and FMA did when claiming if they did not get the total (100%) tort reform they wanted (which was horrible to consumer), they would leave the state. They did not get what they wanted, they got fair legislation and guess what? They are still here raking in the bucks. Its cr-p. This bill is a TOTAL giveaway to the insurance industry. A TOTAL
w h o r e type give away. You dont allow them to do as they plase to keep them here, that is INSANE. This bill does that. It would prohibit the insurance Commissioner from making a decision whether the insurance industry sould raise their rates with out any justification at all. That is just PURE PURE C R A P. So stop the BULL. The bill is NOT good and is simply what the insurance industry ordered.
Posted by: No Bull taken here | May 21, 2009 at 07:02 PM
Paul, you are right. Maybe Bennett should resign. Have you looked at his other bills? They are not remotely fair, they are a developers dream come true. Devastating to our states natural rescouces and seems that he is in a fierce competition to raise big dollars to try to get that Senate Presidency from Haridopolis. This is not what the people of this state need or deserve.
Posted by: Had enough | May 21, 2009 at 07:21 PM
Kevin McCarty has stood up for consumers every time. He has fought State Farm to a standstill. State Farm has lost in multiple hearings and courts, and now insurance company proxies attack our Commissioner.
Commissioner McCarty is highly respected nationally and Florida is lucky to have him. Nearly every consumer group in the state stands behind McCarty and we hope Charlie Crist will too.
Bennett's CCE's have, as far as can be determined, accepted significant contributions from the insurance industry. They got funding from worker's comp companies as well as PCI. The money is sickening.
Bennett is supposed to be a smart guy, but attacking a popular insurance commissioner might not help him much back in the district. Of course, he probably has little to fear, but, as they say, the harder they come, the harder they fall.
Posted by: Bill Newton, Florida Consumer Action Network | May 21, 2009 at 07:30 PM
Resign? For what? Standing up for the people? Bennett ought to apologize AND retire.
Posted by: Joe | May 21, 2009 at 07:31 PM
Kevin, thank you for standing up for what is right.
Bennett, NOT SO MUCH.
Posted by: Former OIR'er | May 21, 2009 at 07:33 PM
You vote with your wallet as a consumer plain and simple.
Got it? You don't have to buy the insurance but you don't kick the company out of the state.
Your analogy is not comparable. FL Homeowners need options and Statefarm is a very old and respected insurance company that actually pays their claims.
This bill is for the consumers of Florida.
Posted by: ::: | May 21, 2009 at 07:34 PM
Bennett is a total crook (just look at SB 360) nothing he says has any credibility.
Posted by: Hit the road Bennett | May 21, 2009 at 07:35 PM
I'll be as blunt as bennett. These little chicken***it companies that are propped up by the OIR are one hurricane away from total and complete failure.
These fools "protecting" the public have somehow put all of us in the position of having to buy from these no-name, chicken***it companies and pay exhorbitant rates for that wonderful pleasure.
I would give my left *** nut be able to have State Farm, and not this ma and pa insurance company that I'm with that I KNOW will not pay a friggin claim if a Cat 5 storm hits my area.
Some of you dont have a clue.
Posted by: Fleeced Floridian | May 21, 2009 at 07:47 PM
7:34 Your full of baloney. Pure and simple, to allow a insurance company to raise rates even when not vetted for justification, is just give away. This is just to by pass the Commissioner. You are either Bennett or a lobbyist for that industry. If the Governor does not veto that bill it will be one of the worst things he can do before starting his run for US Senate. It is a very very anti consumer legislative undertaking and it did not get by us.
Posted by: too old and too wise to be fooled by boobs | May 21, 2009 at 07:47 PM
7:47 Sounds like you would give your left nut if the price was right. You must be Bennett. Still n the hot tub?
Posted by: too old and too wise to be fooled by boobs | May 21, 2009 at 07:50 PM
7:47 How can you think that a unregulated big insurance company should be allowed to raise its rates whenever it wants without proving a basis for it? You must already be short that nut.
Posted by: cutthebull | May 21, 2009 at 07:55 PM
7:55 I heard that the last hot tub get together with the female lobbyist is what lost him that nut. Wife wasn't happy.
Posted by: abc | May 21, 2009 at 08:00 PM
Dont know about his left nut or hot tubs, but taking a customers right to stay with state farm away just because some politician wants to be a hot-dog is just plain BS.
I am with Farm Bureau, but if they dropped me, youd bet id want to be with State Farm. At least they pay claims.
My sister has some company that just formed 2 years ago after she got dropped from allstate. You people are idiots wanting State Farm to leave. They do just fine in every other state in the country.
Bunch of nanny-state goobers.
Posted by: 747 is right. | May 21, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Bennett has been lobbying for insurance companies for the last 3 years! He is an insurance agent! He does not have our interest just his! The insurance commissioner is right! This is a state farm bill and they have scr$wed florida for years!!
Posted by: sick of insurance agents | May 21, 2009 at 08:27 PM
Ah, the moronic citizens who have no understanding of insurance or finance are hooting loudly.
These are the same fools who ended up believing Gov. Crist when he said he'd lower insurance rates.
McCarty is a devilish mandarin and this is a perfect example of how the mandarins who run state agencies lie, cheat, and steal. Agency heads hoodwink citizens' elected representatives all the freaking time, and Bennett's letter is an excellent example of how they do this.
This is a good reason anybody who testifies before a legislative committee--lobbyists, agency heads and staff, legislative employees, citizens--should be sworn to tell the truth under criminal penalties for failure.
Otherwise, our government isn't ours at all--just a bunch of power hungry, self-preserving bureaucrats.
I've seen this time and again from the inside, both in the executive and legislative branches. It is shameful!
Posted by: whasup | May 21, 2009 at 08:28 PM
Mike bennett isnt an insurance agent you nincapoop.
Posted by: Bennettfan | May 21, 2009 at 08:38 PM
As a fellow with many years professional experience working in and around the property & casualty insurance industry, I have an appreciation for both the plusses and minuses of Senator Bennett's bill and also of Commissioner McCarty's points. If Sen. Bennett is accurate in his assessment of Commissioner McCarty's reluctance to communicate clearly and straightforwardly, then, shame on Mr. McCarty. The only problem I have with this Office of Insurance Regulation is my perception that it attacks only what it wants to attack, and perhaps, does so choosing its targets not so much for the best interests of our Florida society but more for its own self-aggrandizement. Perhaps new leadership would be refreshing.
Posted by: DannyTarpon | May 21, 2009 at 09:10 PM
Until we have true competition in the Florida HOI market, the rates will stay out of control. Crist and McCarty have done little except play Russian Roulette with Floridian's future by insisting on reinsuring financially weak companies, running off the financially strong companies, and allowing Citizens to charge an artificial rate. Pray we don't get a major storm this season, it could cost every homeowner thousands if we do thanks to these charlatan's.
Posted by: Uncle | May 21, 2009 at 09:28 PM
8:28 Yes, that is the attitude Bennett and many other legislators have. The people of our state are Just "moronic citizens" and Senator Bennett knows best. Even if he has to raise lots of money so he can try to pull the coup to topple Haridopolis. That makes no difference and no one should view that as a possible reason for him to run such a piece of s-it bill. Well, we the moronic citizens know CRAP when we see it. We, the moronic citizens know that if you allow the big insurance industry to regulate them selves, we get screwed. To give them the ability to raise their own rates with no oversight, with not having to show anyone justification for a rate increase is unreal. And you have the nerve to call us "moronic citizens". You can try all you like to justify this prostituted sell out, it won't work.
Posted by: abc | May 21, 2009 at 09:40 PM
9:10 I agree. New leadership is in order. When do you think Bennett will resign so we can get that new leadership?
Posted by: a moron citizen Duh! | May 21, 2009 at 09:43 PM
8:21 Spoken like a true State Farm lobbyist. Soaking in hot tubs with industry lobbyist does matter. Says a lot abut the guy. Not rumor, check the internet. He got caught. Point is we are not idiots. To have them regulate themselves is a total sell out of any protections to the public. PERIOD. your stories just don't matter. An unregulated fat cat big profit making powerful insurance industry should never be allowed to regulate them selves and if they don;t like some oversight, then good bye. There will be some other company that will come in and do the job.
Posted by: a moron citizen Duh! | May 21, 2009 at 09:54 PM
Bennett's letter backfired on him. Bad move. Can't think people are going to be happy about letting the big insurers regulate themselves. Stupid move Mike. The insurers are about as well regarded as the big bankers, the big pharmaceutical companies and the fat cat CEO's of all of those. You cannot win with this one.
Posted by: iii | May 21, 2009 at 10:06 PM
McCarty broke his promise.
He needs to exit before he gets the axxx.
Posted by: terminator | May 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM
There are two issues here:
1. Is this legislation good or should it be vetoed? Either way Senator Bennett will deal with it.
2. More important, did McCarty lie? If so, he not only has lost credibility with Senator Bennett, but with the entire legislature. He will never be trusted again, by anyone! He should just step down now.
I don't care who you are, or how much power you have (or think you have) to change the will and intent of lawmakers, you NEVER LIE to them.
Senator Bennet may soon have the power to scratch your position, your salary or even better eliminate your entire agency next year. Very stupid move, McCarty.
Posted by: NEVER LIE TO A LEGISLATOR! | May 21, 2009 at 11:47 PM
Unfortunately, McCarty is a crass demagogue. While I haven't read much on the political end vis-a-vis Bennett, I've examined the financial and actuarial situation of Citizens and the Cat Fund (the result is publicly available in watered-down form as the PML Report from OIR).
For those of us that truly serve Florida consumers (and even after getting a pay cut, never get mentioned in a press release), we realize that rates need to be raised to ensure that consumers will be protected in the event of a 3.5% storm... which is 75% likely in a 40 year period.
Posted by: Civil Servant | May 22, 2009 at 01:31 AM
Whatever the jackass Bennett does, you can bet it benefits big business and screws over the average citizen.
Posted by: BENNETT=SCUM | May 22, 2009 at 08:40 AM
I guess you had to be there for some of this, but in reality, the only thing you have to do to be accused of lying to Sen. Bennett is to disagree with him. At least he didn't pull out the old standard, "I've never seen this guy in my life" routine that he uses when someone disagrees with his bill in committee.
Posted by: JS | May 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM
JS.. you must be watching some other meetings..Bennett asks tough questions, expects straight answers. Can you name any time that he has denied knowing someone. I think you must be mixing him up with Fasano or Haridopolis
Posted by: outsider | May 22, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Bennett needs to resign! Period. His ANTI-CONSUMER bills show he is a industry hack. Fair is one thing, but his bills are total give aways. RESIGN!
Posted by: a foridian | May 22, 2009 at 01:55 PM
Yes, Outsider, I can. Growth management bill debates this year just to bring forth the latest example(more than once, I might add). Denied ever "laying eyes on" one of the most active lobbyists in the Capitol.
Posted by: JS | May 22, 2009 at 02:25 PM