post by palado
Personal Insurance
In today’s market, it is important to realize that no two insurance companies are the same. While insurance companies differ in coverage design, claim management abilities, and emphasis on customer service, it can often be advantageous for individuals to work through an independent insurance agent. Personal insurances available include Auto, Motorcycle, Home and Boat Insurance. For more information about these products, please select from the list below.
Auto
Motorcycle
Home
Boat
As one of New Hampshire’s largest insurance agencies, Watson Insurance has access to more sources of insurance coverage in the marketplace than most. We represent a wide variety of insurance companies, being careful to choose the one most suited to meet our individual clients needs. In addition, we understand service is important, and because of that our clients are afforded a dedicated Customer Service Representative as well as Claims Executive to assist them in a prompt, efficient manner.
Phone or e-mail us today for quick comparative quotes with our leading companies. We are here to help answer your questions and to provide you with the best possible coverage for your premium dollars. If you are pleased with us, spread the word! We will be happy to give the same great service to your friends and family. Here at Watson Insurance we are only a quick call or e-mail away.
New Members Only—$12,000 of Term Life and AD&D at no cost for one year!
credit by palado
New AFT members are entitled to $12,000 of life insurance protection for one year at absolutely no cost. This plan also provides for payment of an additional $12,000 in the event of a member's death as a result of an accident.
Click here for more information or to print the insurance activation form. The insurance administrator's address, where the signed activator must be sent, appears on the bottom of the form. If you have questions, call the AFT dedicated toll-free number at 888/423-8700.
Members qualify for this outstanding benefit as long as they are new AFT members and actively working. Members must complete, sign and return an activation form to be eligible for this valuable coverage. The coverage will become effective on the first day of the month after the completed and signed activation form is received by FPA, the AFT + insurance administrator.
New members may also enroll in additional coverage without a Statement of Health within 12 months of joining AFT as long has you have not been hospitalized or treated for any condition within the prior 90 days and are considered to be an active employee.
Underwriter - Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife)
Insurance Administrator - Future Planning Associates, Inc.
New AFT members are entitled to $12,000 of life insurance protection for one year at absolutely no cost. This plan also provides for payment of an additional $12,000 in the event of a member's death as a result of an accident.
Click here for more information or to print the insurance activation form. The insurance administrator's address, where the signed activator must be sent, appears on the bottom of the form. If you have questions, call the AFT dedicated toll-free number at 888/423-8700.
Members qualify for this outstanding benefit as long as they are new AFT members and actively working. Members must complete, sign and return an activation form to be eligible for this valuable coverage. The coverage will become effective on the first day of the month after the completed and signed activation form is received by FPA, the AFT + insurance administrator.
New members may also enroll in additional coverage without a Statement of Health within 12 months of joining AFT as long has you have not been hospitalized or treated for any condition within the prior 90 days and are considered to be an active employee.
Underwriter - Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife)
Insurance Administrator - Future Planning Associates, Inc.
Bush Administration Opposes 'Scheme Liability' in Key Investor Lawsuit
Credit by By Marcy Gordon
The Bush Administration took the side of defendant companies in a Supreme Court case that could determine the fate of other investor lawsuits, including one linked to the Enron scandal.
At issue in the case before the United States' highest court is whether third parties such as investment banks, accountants, lawyers or vendors can be found liable in shareholder lawsuits for scheming with companies accused of deceiving investors.
The brief filed by the Justice Department's solicitor general, who represents the Bush administration before the court, maintains that allowing such liability would vastly overreach the securities laws against Congress' intent.
It could potentially expose the third parties "far removed from the market to billions of dollars in liability when (public companies) make misstatements to the market,'' the solicitor general, Paul Clement, argued in the brief. "Congress consciously struck a balance ... by empowering the Securities and Exchange Commission alone to pursue cases of aiding and abetting'' corporate fraud.
The importance of the case was underscored in mid-June when Bush personally weighed in, telling Clement that it is important to reduce unnecessary lawsuits and that the SEC, rather than shareholders, is in the best position to sue for damages.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the case could determine whether shareholders can pursue suits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and companies accused of defrauding investors.
"While I am certainly not surprised, I am disappointed that the federal government has once again decided to favor the interests of large corporations and investment banks over those of individual and institutional investors,'' Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said in a statement. Dann, a Democrat, was one of 30 state attorneys general who earlier sided with investors in the case and referenced the Enron scandal 55 times in their court filing.
As solicitor general, Clement's view carries weight among the Supreme Court justices, even if the court ultimately rules against his position
The controversy escalated in June when the administration, through Clement, rejected an SEC recommendation in the case and did not support the position of investors suing for damages. He did that by not filing a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the plaintiff shareholders' position.
The brief that Clement submitted on Wednesday met the court's deadline for filings in support of the defendant companies' position in the case, Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta. He did agree with the SEC on one point, saying that a federal appeals court erred by concluding that a deceptive act is limited to misstatements or omissions. He said in the brief that it "potentially reaches all conduct that is manipulative or deceptive.''
In recent weeks, several prominent lawmakers of both parties and former SEC officials have urged the administration not to support the defendants. On the other side, a bipartisan array of three former SEC chairmen, 13 other former SEC officials and 11 academic experts have urged the administration to take that position.
Although the court has not decided whether to hear arguments in the Enron case, justices have agreed to review the Stoneridge case, a similar suit brought by investors against suppliers to one of the nation's largest cable TV companies. The court is expected to hear the Stoneridge case in October.
If the court rules against investors in the cable TV suit, it could mean that other cases — like the Enron shareholders' suit — would not be able to go forward.
__
On the Net:
Solicitor General's office: http://usdoj.gov/osg
Securities and Exchange Commission: http://www.sec.gov
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
The Bush Administration took the side of defendant companies in a Supreme Court case that could determine the fate of other investor lawsuits, including one linked to the Enron scandal.
At issue in the case before the United States' highest court is whether third parties such as investment banks, accountants, lawyers or vendors can be found liable in shareholder lawsuits for scheming with companies accused of deceiving investors.
The brief filed by the Justice Department's solicitor general, who represents the Bush administration before the court, maintains that allowing such liability would vastly overreach the securities laws against Congress' intent.
It could potentially expose the third parties "far removed from the market to billions of dollars in liability when (public companies) make misstatements to the market,'' the solicitor general, Paul Clement, argued in the brief. "Congress consciously struck a balance ... by empowering the Securities and Exchange Commission alone to pursue cases of aiding and abetting'' corporate fraud.
The importance of the case was underscored in mid-June when Bush personally weighed in, telling Clement that it is important to reduce unnecessary lawsuits and that the SEC, rather than shareholders, is in the best position to sue for damages.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the case could determine whether shareholders can pursue suits to recover investment losses if they can prove collusion between Wall Street institutions and companies accused of defrauding investors.
"While I am certainly not surprised, I am disappointed that the federal government has once again decided to favor the interests of large corporations and investment banks over those of individual and institutional investors,'' Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann said in a statement. Dann, a Democrat, was one of 30 state attorneys general who earlier sided with investors in the case and referenced the Enron scandal 55 times in their court filing.
As solicitor general, Clement's view carries weight among the Supreme Court justices, even if the court ultimately rules against his position
The controversy escalated in June when the administration, through Clement, rejected an SEC recommendation in the case and did not support the position of investors suing for damages. He did that by not filing a friend-of-the-court brief in favor of the plaintiff shareholders' position.
The brief that Clement submitted on Wednesday met the court's deadline for filings in support of the defendant companies' position in the case, Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta. He did agree with the SEC on one point, saying that a federal appeals court erred by concluding that a deceptive act is limited to misstatements or omissions. He said in the brief that it "potentially reaches all conduct that is manipulative or deceptive.''
In recent weeks, several prominent lawmakers of both parties and former SEC officials have urged the administration not to support the defendants. On the other side, a bipartisan array of three former SEC chairmen, 13 other former SEC officials and 11 academic experts have urged the administration to take that position.
Although the court has not decided whether to hear arguments in the Enron case, justices have agreed to review the Stoneridge case, a similar suit brought by investors against suppliers to one of the nation's largest cable TV companies. The court is expected to hear the Stoneridge case in October.
If the court rules against investors in the cable TV suit, it could mean that other cases — like the Enron shareholders' suit — would not be able to go forward.
__
On the Net:
Solicitor General's office: http://usdoj.gov/osg
Securities and Exchange Commission: http://www.sec.gov
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/
BIG “I” Applauds State Legislators For Supporting Mccarran-Ferguson
Post by palado
NCSL says repeal of anti-trust exemption would not benefit consumers
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 9, 2007—The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (the Big “I”) applauds The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) for passing a resolution supporting the preservation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s limited anti-trust exemption and opposing congressional proposals to revise the decades-old law.
The resolution was adopted by NCSL’s Communications, Financial Services, and Interstate Commerce Committee during the organization’s 2007 Legislative Summit. The annual meeting – which was attended by approximately 1700 bipartisan lawmakers from all 50 states -- took place this week in Boston.
“The Big ‘I’ and its 300,000 members nationwide commend America’s state legislators on this resolution and we agree that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is crucial for consumer choice and comparison shopping, smaller and regional insurers, competition, and more ,” says Big “I” CEO Robert A. Rusbuldt. “We believe the qualified application of federal antitrust law to this sector has served both the market and consumers well. Where marketplace anomalies exist, it is not due to the McCarran Act. In fact, without the Act, the situation would likely be exacerbated for consumers.”
In addition to describing NCSL’s support for the state regulatory system and the current McCarran-Ferguson framework, the resolution expresses the legislators’ opposition to the Insurance Industry Competition Act (S.618 and H.R. 1081). The statement argues that such federal proposals would not increase the availability or lower the cost of insurance and would instead undermine efforts to make the industry more competitive. The resolution also recognizes the pro-consumer aspects of the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s limited antitrust provisions, which promote competition by permitting the use of standardized insurance forms and the collection and sharing of historical loss data.
Big “I” Sr. Counsel for State Government Affairs Wes Bissett expressed the association’s agreement with NCSL’s assessment. “NCSL is 100% correct in pointing out that the potential loss of standardized forms would ‘make it more difficult for consumers to know what they are purchasing and to compare insurance options,’” says Bissett. “We urge Congress to consider the well-founded concerns of state policymakers before taking any action that could harm insurance consumers and hinder competition, particularly the ability of small and medium sized insurance companies to compete in the marketplace.”
NCSL is the latest state legislator organization to express its concerns with possible changes to the McCarran-Ferguson Act. In April 2007, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) weighed in with House and Senate leaders and suggested that revisions to the act would destabilize insurance markets, threaten the ability of small and medium-sized insurers to compete with larger players, produce higher insurance prices and other detrimental consumer effects, and initiate years of costly litigation.
Founded in 1896, IIABA (the Big “I”) is the nation’s oldest and largest national association of independent insurance agents and brokers, representing a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers and their employees nationally. Its members are businesses that offer customers a choice of policies from a variety of insurance companies. Independent agents and brokers offer all lines of insurance—property, casualty, life, and health—as well as employee benefit plans and retirement products. Web address: www.independentagent.com.
NCSL says repeal of anti-trust exemption would not benefit consumers
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 9, 2007—The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (the Big “I”) applauds The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) for passing a resolution supporting the preservation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s limited anti-trust exemption and opposing congressional proposals to revise the decades-old law.
The resolution was adopted by NCSL’s Communications, Financial Services, and Interstate Commerce Committee during the organization’s 2007 Legislative Summit. The annual meeting – which was attended by approximately 1700 bipartisan lawmakers from all 50 states -- took place this week in Boston.
“The Big ‘I’ and its 300,000 members nationwide commend America’s state legislators on this resolution and we agree that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is crucial for consumer choice and comparison shopping, smaller and regional insurers, competition, and more ,” says Big “I” CEO Robert A. Rusbuldt. “We believe the qualified application of federal antitrust law to this sector has served both the market and consumers well. Where marketplace anomalies exist, it is not due to the McCarran Act. In fact, without the Act, the situation would likely be exacerbated for consumers.”
In addition to describing NCSL’s support for the state regulatory system and the current McCarran-Ferguson framework, the resolution expresses the legislators’ opposition to the Insurance Industry Competition Act (S.618 and H.R. 1081). The statement argues that such federal proposals would not increase the availability or lower the cost of insurance and would instead undermine efforts to make the industry more competitive. The resolution also recognizes the pro-consumer aspects of the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s limited antitrust provisions, which promote competition by permitting the use of standardized insurance forms and the collection and sharing of historical loss data.
Big “I” Sr. Counsel for State Government Affairs Wes Bissett expressed the association’s agreement with NCSL’s assessment. “NCSL is 100% correct in pointing out that the potential loss of standardized forms would ‘make it more difficult for consumers to know what they are purchasing and to compare insurance options,’” says Bissett. “We urge Congress to consider the well-founded concerns of state policymakers before taking any action that could harm insurance consumers and hinder competition, particularly the ability of small and medium sized insurance companies to compete in the marketplace.”
NCSL is the latest state legislator organization to express its concerns with possible changes to the McCarran-Ferguson Act. In April 2007, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) weighed in with House and Senate leaders and suggested that revisions to the act would destabilize insurance markets, threaten the ability of small and medium-sized insurers to compete with larger players, produce higher insurance prices and other detrimental consumer effects, and initiate years of costly litigation.
Founded in 1896, IIABA (the Big “I”) is the nation’s oldest and largest national association of independent insurance agents and brokers, representing a network of more than 300,000 agents, brokers and their employees nationally. Its members are businesses that offer customers a choice of policies from a variety of insurance companies. Independent agents and brokers offer all lines of insurance—property, casualty, life, and health—as well as employee benefit plans and retirement products. Web address: www.independentagent.com.
Natural Catastrophe Commission Bill Provides For Important Examination of Disaster Mitigation, Relief
Post by palado
August 1, 2007
WASHINGTON—A natural catastrophe commission bill scheduled for consideration today by the Senate Banking Committee would provide for an important examination of how best to mitigate disaster risks and deal with the after-effects of these events, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).
The bill establishing a commission to look at the various aspects of natural disasters and insurance includes evaluating whether there may be catastrophe exposures that are beyond the capability of the private market and individual state catastrophe funds to address. PCI believes that there is a need to encourage new capital to enter property insurance markets and facilitate innovative ways to cover difficult risks through enacting greater regulatory flexibility and lower regulatory costs. The commission's duties, as outlined in the bill, include looking at these issues as well as enactment and enforcement of tougher standards for building codes, property development and other loss prevention and mitigation requirements that are also vital when looking toward the future and evaluating this issue.
“PCI believes that developing and enacting effective public policy to address future natural catastrophes is one of the most significant issues facing the insurance industry,” said June Holmes, PCI’s interim CEO. “Experts agree that the nation faces the prospect of more frequent and severe natural disasters in the coming decade. Moreover, significant property development, population growth, and rapidly rising real estate prices in areas prone to natural disasters exacerbates the potential for increasingly larger human and economic losses as a result of such disasters, requiring stronger mitigation as well as greater financial resources to fund future recovery and repair efforts.”
PCI believes that it may be necessary for the federal government to offer liquidity protection to state catastrophe funds at the highest level consistent with the maintenance of stable markets and avoidance of widespread insurer insolvencies. It is also essential that any federal program include measures intended to promote freedom for markets to respond to these exposures, including meaningful limitations on the ability of participating states to control and/or suppress property insurance rates or to maintain other unnecessary restrictions. PCI is pleased to see that the bill includes an evaluation of federal and state regulatory issues as well.
Go to main >>
August 1, 2007
WASHINGTON—A natural catastrophe commission bill scheduled for consideration today by the Senate Banking Committee would provide for an important examination of how best to mitigate disaster risks and deal with the after-effects of these events, according to the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).
The bill establishing a commission to look at the various aspects of natural disasters and insurance includes evaluating whether there may be catastrophe exposures that are beyond the capability of the private market and individual state catastrophe funds to address. PCI believes that there is a need to encourage new capital to enter property insurance markets and facilitate innovative ways to cover difficult risks through enacting greater regulatory flexibility and lower regulatory costs. The commission's duties, as outlined in the bill, include looking at these issues as well as enactment and enforcement of tougher standards for building codes, property development and other loss prevention and mitigation requirements that are also vital when looking toward the future and evaluating this issue.
“PCI believes that developing and enacting effective public policy to address future natural catastrophes is one of the most significant issues facing the insurance industry,” said June Holmes, PCI’s interim CEO. “Experts agree that the nation faces the prospect of more frequent and severe natural disasters in the coming decade. Moreover, significant property development, population growth, and rapidly rising real estate prices in areas prone to natural disasters exacerbates the potential for increasingly larger human and economic losses as a result of such disasters, requiring stronger mitigation as well as greater financial resources to fund future recovery and repair efforts.”
PCI believes that it may be necessary for the federal government to offer liquidity protection to state catastrophe funds at the highest level consistent with the maintenance of stable markets and avoidance of widespread insurer insolvencies. It is also essential that any federal program include measures intended to promote freedom for markets to respond to these exposures, including meaningful limitations on the ability of participating states to control and/or suppress property insurance rates or to maintain other unnecessary restrictions. PCI is pleased to see that the bill includes an evaluation of federal and state regulatory issues as well.
Go to main >>
BIG “I” Supports Pomeroy-Cantor Intangible Assets Tax Bill
Post by palado
Legislation would modernize depreciation schedule
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 6, 2007—The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (the Big “I”) supports a bill introduced Friday in the House that would allow purchasers of eligible small businesses to depreciate as much as $5 million of acquired intangible assets over the course of a five-year period.
The bipartisan bill, the “Tax Fairness for Small Business Act,” introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.Dak.) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), two members of the House Ways and Means Committee, would provide a more accurate amortization of intangible assets acquired through the purchase of small businesses, thereby increasing the liquidity of Main Street businesses.
“The Big ‘I’ has been a longtime proponent of common-sense tax reform on intangible assets acquired through the purchase of one small business by another,” says Charles E. Symington Jr., Big “I” senior vice president for government affairs and federal relations. “We and our members are very pleased that Congressmen Pomeroy and Cantor are moving forward to provide tax relief to Main Street America’s businessmen and businesswomen, and we thank them for their work on this issue.”
Current law requires intangible assets to be depreciated over 15 years, even though these specific types of assets, such as customer lists, have much shorter shelf lives. In fact, experience has shown that these types of intangible assets have shelf lives closer to five years. The Big “I” consistently has supported shortening the depreciation schedule for these assets.
Go to main >>
Legislation would modernize depreciation schedule
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 6, 2007—The Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (the Big “I”) supports a bill introduced Friday in the House that would allow purchasers of eligible small businesses to depreciate as much as $5 million of acquired intangible assets over the course of a five-year period.
The bipartisan bill, the “Tax Fairness for Small Business Act,” introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.Dak.) and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), two members of the House Ways and Means Committee, would provide a more accurate amortization of intangible assets acquired through the purchase of small businesses, thereby increasing the liquidity of Main Street businesses.
“The Big ‘I’ has been a longtime proponent of common-sense tax reform on intangible assets acquired through the purchase of one small business by another,” says Charles E. Symington Jr., Big “I” senior vice president for government affairs and federal relations. “We and our members are very pleased that Congressmen Pomeroy and Cantor are moving forward to provide tax relief to Main Street America’s businessmen and businesswomen, and we thank them for their work on this issue.”
Current law requires intangible assets to be depreciated over 15 years, even though these specific types of assets, such as customer lists, have much shorter shelf lives. In fact, experience has shown that these types of intangible assets have shelf lives closer to five years. The Big “I” consistently has supported shortening the depreciation schedule for these assets.
Go to main >>
Adding Annuities May Be Next Frontier In 401(k) Plans, Watson Wyatt Experts Say
Copyright : PR Newswire
Source : PR Newswire
Wordcount : 632
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Faced with the possibility that a growing number of employees will outlive their income in retirement, companies will likely consider offering annuities as a new investment option in their 401(k) plans, say experts at Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a leading global consulting firm.
"With the baby boomers beginning to retire, we will soon see how the first generation to be more reliant on 401(k) plans than traditional pensions makes do," said Robyn Credico, national director of Watson Wyatt's defined contribution practice. "Current and future retirees will have to pay more attention to details than previous retirees did. Many will not only find they have not saved enough, but also will struggle with what to do with a lump sum payout they will have to stretch over the rest of their lives."
Unlike traditional pensions, most of which provide a regular payment to retirees, retirement savings in 401(k) plans are usually distributed as a lump sum. As a result, it is up to retirees to manage their savings. Some purchase annuities on the open market, but the prices for such products are generally quite high and are significantly affected by interest rate fluctuations and other factors.
"Purchasing an annuity adds another level of complication to retirement," said Mark Warshawsky, director of retirement research at Watson Wyatt. "Employees must not only plan out their investment strategies, but also purchase annuities at the right time. Waiting a few months can mean the difference of hundreds of dollars in their monthly annuity income if interest rates change."
As employers consider offering annuities to boost workers' retirement security, many are looking for a broader range of products -- from simple, institutionally priced immediate and deferred annuities at retirement to flexible, portable in-service annuities.
It's to employers' advantage to help ensure employees have sufficient retirement income. Otherwise, they may see a generation of workers who cannot afford to retire," said Brian Hersey, an investment director and senior consultant with Watson Wyatt. "Having enough to live on and not outliving one's savings are the primary concerns of most retirees. Actively managing lump sums is a huge challenge, even for advanced investors. It is time for the investment industry to step up with a range of institutionally viable solutions to meet these needs."
Goto main >>
Source : PR Newswire
Wordcount : 632
WASHINGTON, Aug. 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Faced with the possibility that a growing number of employees will outlive their income in retirement, companies will likely consider offering annuities as a new investment option in their 401(k) plans, say experts at Watson Wyatt Worldwide, a leading global consulting firm.
"With the baby boomers beginning to retire, we will soon see how the first generation to be more reliant on 401(k) plans than traditional pensions makes do," said Robyn Credico, national director of Watson Wyatt's defined contribution practice. "Current and future retirees will have to pay more attention to details than previous retirees did. Many will not only find they have not saved enough, but also will struggle with what to do with a lump sum payout they will have to stretch over the rest of their lives."
Unlike traditional pensions, most of which provide a regular payment to retirees, retirement savings in 401(k) plans are usually distributed as a lump sum. As a result, it is up to retirees to manage their savings. Some purchase annuities on the open market, but the prices for such products are generally quite high and are significantly affected by interest rate fluctuations and other factors.
"Purchasing an annuity adds another level of complication to retirement," said Mark Warshawsky, director of retirement research at Watson Wyatt. "Employees must not only plan out their investment strategies, but also purchase annuities at the right time. Waiting a few months can mean the difference of hundreds of dollars in their monthly annuity income if interest rates change."
As employers consider offering annuities to boost workers' retirement security, many are looking for a broader range of products -- from simple, institutionally priced immediate and deferred annuities at retirement to flexible, portable in-service annuities.
It's to employers' advantage to help ensure employees have sufficient retirement income. Otherwise, they may see a generation of workers who cannot afford to retire," said Brian Hersey, an investment director and senior consultant with Watson Wyatt. "Having enough to live on and not outliving one's savings are the primary concerns of most retirees. Actively managing lump sums is a huge challenge, even for advanced investors. It is time for the investment industry to step up with a range of institutionally viable solutions to meet these needs."
Goto main >>
Travel Insurance Quotes
Post by palado
Travel insurance is designed to pay for the unexpected losses that can arise when things go wrong before or during a trip or vacation. Purchased from a private company or a tour operator, travel insurance can pay for things like vacation and trip cancellation, baggage damage, repatriation, accidental death, emergency medical and health expenses, travel interruptions and delays, evacuation and overseas funeral expenses, legal assistance, and more. Some travel insurance policies provide further coverage for additional costs that vary between different providers. Various travel policies also offer separate insurances at specific costs such as for participation in high-risk sports (i.e. scuba-diving or skiing) or travel to high-risk countries (i.e. due to war or natural disasters) for the duration of your trip.
Go to main >>
Travel insurance is designed to pay for the unexpected losses that can arise when things go wrong before or during a trip or vacation. Purchased from a private company or a tour operator, travel insurance can pay for things like vacation and trip cancellation, baggage damage, repatriation, accidental death, emergency medical and health expenses, travel interruptions and delays, evacuation and overseas funeral expenses, legal assistance, and more. Some travel insurance policies provide further coverage for additional costs that vary between different providers. Various travel policies also offer separate insurances at specific costs such as for participation in high-risk sports (i.e. scuba-diving or skiing) or travel to high-risk countries (i.e. due to war or natural disasters) for the duration of your trip.Go to main >>
Hurricane Katrina And Insurance: Two Years Later $40.6 Billion In Insurance Claim Dollars Aid Recovery
Post by palado
Of More Than One Million Homeowners Claims 99 Percent Are Settled;
Few Remain in Dispute
Disaster Losses Along Atlantic and Gulf Coasts Likely to Escalate in Coming Years
NEW YORK, August 6, 2007 — The single largest loss in the history of the insurance industry occurred two years ago this month when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, causing$40.6 billion in insured damage. Nearly two years later, the overwhelming majority of claims have been settled.
The magnitude of Hurricane Katrina triggered a reexamination of how the United States deals with the financial consequences of natural disasters among insurers, reinsurers and public policymakers, which continues today, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.).
Despite the attention focused on lawsuits filed following this catastrophic storm, the number of claims in litigation accounted for a very small percentage of the total number of claims filed and most of those are no longer in contention. The I.I.I. estimates that fewer than 2 percent of homeowners claims in Louisiana and Mississippi were disputed either through mediation or litigation.
Insurance companies have paid an estimated $40.6 billion to policyholders on 1.7 million claims for damage to homes, businesses and vehicles in six states. By contrast, Hurricane Andrew, the previous record holder, resulted in $15.5 billion in losses in 1992 ($22.2 billion in 2006 dollars) and 790,000 claims.
Louisiana ($25.3 billion) and Mississippi ($13.6 billion) received by far the most insurance claims dollars to aid in their recovery.
Approximately 99 percent of the 1.2 million homeowners insurance claims from Hurricane Katrina, including those in hard hit Louisiana and Mississippi, have been settled. Claims payments to homeowners in affected states exceeded $16 billion, approximately 93 percent of which went to Katrina victims in Louisiana and Mississippi.
In Louisiana, only 537 out of more than 1,000 suits filed in U.S. District Court remain on the docket. The state-sponsored mediation program in Mississippi has settled 3,034 of 3,687 cases in that state.
Go to main >>
Of More Than One Million Homeowners Claims 99 Percent Are Settled;
Few Remain in Dispute
Disaster Losses Along Atlantic and Gulf Coasts Likely to Escalate in Coming Years
NEW YORK, August 6, 2007 — The single largest loss in the history of the insurance industry occurred two years ago this month when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, causing$40.6 billion in insured damage. Nearly two years later, the overwhelming majority of claims have been settled.
The magnitude of Hurricane Katrina triggered a reexamination of how the United States deals with the financial consequences of natural disasters among insurers, reinsurers and public policymakers, which continues today, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.).
Despite the attention focused on lawsuits filed following this catastrophic storm, the number of claims in litigation accounted for a very small percentage of the total number of claims filed and most of those are no longer in contention. The I.I.I. estimates that fewer than 2 percent of homeowners claims in Louisiana and Mississippi were disputed either through mediation or litigation.
Insurance companies have paid an estimated $40.6 billion to policyholders on 1.7 million claims for damage to homes, businesses and vehicles in six states. By contrast, Hurricane Andrew, the previous record holder, resulted in $15.5 billion in losses in 1992 ($22.2 billion in 2006 dollars) and 790,000 claims.
Louisiana ($25.3 billion) and Mississippi ($13.6 billion) received by far the most insurance claims dollars to aid in their recovery.
Approximately 99 percent of the 1.2 million homeowners insurance claims from Hurricane Katrina, including those in hard hit Louisiana and Mississippi, have been settled. Claims payments to homeowners in affected states exceeded $16 billion, approximately 93 percent of which went to Katrina victims in Louisiana and Mississippi.
In Louisiana, only 537 out of more than 1,000 suits filed in U.S. District Court remain on the docket. The state-sponsored mediation program in Mississippi has settled 3,034 of 3,687 cases in that state.
Go to main >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)