Post reply

Re: Maintenance Fees Out-Of-Sight (by Jon S.):

First of all, I don't like it either.

But, as in any and all situations, a Company or even an individual has to somehow cover not only their losses, but anticipated losses. In the insurance industry, anticipated losses are known as risk, also known as "chances", as in "what are the chances of.....".

If you buy and sell corn/flowers/paint, etc., and know that the cost of those items will probably rise for whatever reason, you build that price increase into your cost. Therefore your selling price will also rise.

Same logic with insurance, with a simple detour. For years, insurance companies were able to keep their costs low, simply because they were making their profits in the stock market. EVERYBODY was paying less for insurance than what the risk factors indicated. But since Insurance Co.'s were making so much in the stock markets, they overlooked the risk factors.

Starting with 9/11, which brought huge losses (property, life, stocks) and continuing through all of the natural disasters since, insurance companies have decided to price insurance according to the risk's indicated and not rely on the stock market. Therefore all of us are now paying a fair share of the perceived risk involved. We, as consumers, do not share that feeling, but only because we liked the prices that we formerly paid, not the new prices. Just like gas prices.

Those who own properties in known hurricane, flood, tornado, earthquake or forest fire areas, are now paying for the actual risk involved. Just like life insurance rates for smokers and non-smokers. Risk costs money. Remember the "Dares" that we used to make, and still do. I will pay you $10 to jump off the roof. You won't do it for $10, but you will for $100. That's known as "perceived RISK", your perception of the risk, based on your knowledge of the event.

Having said all that, while the new insurance costs do not surprise me, I agree with a previous post that I am not sure of the increases on our Maintainance invoices and whether they are fairly applied as to number of units.

Bottom line; I don't like it either, but I do understand it.