“My dog doesn’t bite” — until it does
“My dog doesn’t bite” — until it does
Sometimes even good dogs bite, and when they do, you could be sued. If your dog bites someone, don’t panic. It’s important to remain calm so you can take swift and appropriate action:
- Restrain your dog immediately. Separate it from the scene and confine it.
- Seek medical attention immediately. If you think the injured person needs medical attention call 911.
- Call me. If you have personal liability coverage under your Farmers property policy call me and be prepared to give me information about the time and place of the incident and the name and phone number of witnesses and any injured person.
Remember, if you have Farmers property coverage you can always call HelpPoint® Claim Services by Farmers at
(800) 435-7764 for assistance when you need it most.
Watch the body language
Dogs express their feelings with their bodies just as people do. For instance, a threatening dog may have a wrinkled nose that draws back to reveal its teeth; the hair along the back of its neck may be raised and its ears may lie back; its body may appear tense and the dog may growl or snarl. If your dog is behaving like this, remove him from the scene immediately and confine him. And, always try to avoid any dog displaying any of these signs or acting in a threatening manner.
The federal flood insurance program has been extended until May 31, 2012 under another short-term consolidated appropriations bill (H.R. 2055) passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by President Obama on Dec. 23.
Had the appropriations bill not passed, the National Flood Insurance Program’s authority to issue new or renewal flood insurance policies would have expired at midnight on Dec. 23.
Insurance agents— the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (Big “I”) — applauded the reauthorization while continuing to press for a longer term authorization and program reforms.
“It is important to note that our work on this important issue is far from over and the next few months provide ample opportunity for Congress to pass long-term extension and reform legislation that provides the necessary certainty for consumers,” said Charles E. Symington Jr., Big “I” senior vice president for government affairs.
Symington noted that Congress has traditionally extended the program for five year periods in order to provide stability for the marketplace; however, for the last few years Congress had only extended the program for short periods, mostly from 30 days to six months.
“Today’s extension, although greatly appreciated, is just a temporary patch,” said John Prible, Big “I” vice president for federal government affairs.
To Buy or Lease?
f you’re interested in a new car, the question typically arises: Should I lease or buy? As is often the case, it depends on your individual situation. Many people equate leasing with renting but it may be more useful to consider leasing as financing the use of a vehicle whereas buying with a loan finances the purchase of a vehicle.
Your lifestyle, your priorities
As you think about whether to lease or buy a new vehicle, it’s important to make financial comparisons but it’s also important to consider your lifestyle, your objectives and personal priorities — what’s important to you.
If you …
Enjoy driving a new car every three or four years; want lower monthly payments; want a car that is always under warranty; don’t want to trade or sell used cars; don’t care about building equity in your vehicle; have a predictable lifestyle and drive an average number of miles per year1; properly maintain your cars and are willing to pay more over the long haul to get these benefits, then you may want to consider leasing.
On the other hand, if you …
Value long-term cost savings over lower monthly payments; enjoy owning your vehicle and would like to pay it off and be payment-free for a while; don’t mind the unexpected cost of repairs after the warranty has expired; like to customize your vehicle; drive more than the average number of miles per year and don’t mind higher monthly payments, then you may want to consider buying your vehicle.
Caveat: Lack of flexibility
Some consider the inflexibility of the lease agreement a significant drawback of leasing. If you want or need to terminate your agreement before maturity, you will likely pay a significant penalty for early termination. In many cases, the penalty may equal the remainder of payments due under the agreement. So before you enter into a lease make sure your lifestyle and ability-to-pay are predictable and stable. Contact me at 713-688-8669.
Visit http://www.smartmoney.com/calculator/autos/buy-or-lease-a-car-1302833645461 for more information about leasing. When you decide which option you feel is appropriate for your situation, call me. We can sit down and review your coverage and options so you can be sure you have the insurance you want to go with your new ride.
1According to SmartMoney, the average American driver puts about 12,000 miles per year on his or her car. (http://www.smartmoney.com/calculator/autos/buy-or-lease-a-car-1302833645461)
The Case for Leasing
- Allows you to get a new car frequently
- Provides short-term affordability
- Results in fewer repair bills
- Avoids upside-down loans
The Case against Leasing
- You don’t own the vehicle
- Penalties for early lease termination
- Additional charges for excessive mileage and any damage to the vehicle
- Must buy or return car at end of lease
House Flood Insurance Reform Bill Wins Bipartisan Support
April 7, 2011
Article Comments A House subcommittee yesterday approved a bipartisan bill to reauthorize and reform the nation’s flood insurance program.
The 10 Republicans and eight Democrats on the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee approved the bill on a voice vote.
The legislation (HR 1309) provides for a five-year extension of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and phases out the program’s rate subsidies, gradually raises all premiums to reflect actual costs, improves the accuracy of flood maps and allows more public input into the mapping process, and encourages private insurer and reinsurer participation in the market.
The bill also adds two new coverage options, ties policy limits to inflation, and sets higher deductibles for rate-subsidized properties.
The NFIP, which is more than $17 billion in debt, is currently slated to expire on Sept. 30. It has been operating on short-term authorizations and has been criticized by fiscal watchdogs for under-pricing risk and by environmental groups for promoting development in environmentally-sensitive areas.
“I’m very pleased we were able to move this bill forward with bipartisan support. The current program is in deep financial trouble and our bill places it back on sound footing by phasing in actuarially sound rates, and it addresses a broad range of concerns about new maps, as well as dams and levees,” said Rep. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., subcommittee chair and chief sponsor of the bill.
“Together, these reforms will help ensure reliable protection for homeowners and businesses while shifting the burden of risk off American taxpayers.”
The bill is co-sponsored by subcommittee members Maxine Waters, D-Calif., Scott Garrett, R-N.J., Robert Dold, R-Ill., Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va, and Steve Stivers, R-Oh.
Financial Services Committee Chairman Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., commended Biggert’s committee for its bipartisan action. “Thousands of communities and millions of property owners depend on flood insurance to provide some measure of security. To protect them while minimizing the risk to taxpayers, the NFIP must be made more self-sufficient,” Bachus said.
The plan pushes the program to reduce subsidies in flood insurance rates in several ways.
It requires that rates for most properties be raised by 20 percent a year until they reach actuarially sound levels. These include commercial properties, vacation homes, repetitive loss properties, homes that have had damage exceeding 50 percent of their value, homes that have had improvements exceeding 30 percent of their value, and homes sold to new owners.As part of its effort to move to cost-based rates, the bill raises the cap on increases for certain properties in the program, including commercial buildings, second homes, vacation homes, homes sold to new owners, homes that have had substantial flood damage and improvements, and homes that have had multiple flood claims.
For all other existing policyholders, rates would be allowed to go up within a flex-band of between 10 percent and 20 percent a year. Current law does not allow increases above 10 percent a year.
Also, rates for property owners in communities newly designated as in flood hazard zones would be move to cost-based pricing over a five-year span. Their rates would be start at 50 percent of the actuarial indications the first year, with 20 percent hikes each year thereafter until they are brought in line with what actuaries say they should be.
The bill sets minimum deductibles of $1,000 for properties being charged cost-based rates, and $2,000 for those with subsidized rates.
Maximum coverage limits — currently $250,000 for residential structures, $100,000 for residential contents and $500,000 for commercial properties — would be indexed to inflation starting in 2012.
The bill does not add wind coverage to the NFIP offerings as some lawmakers from coastal states have urged in the past, but it does add two new coverage options: additional living expenses (ALE) up to $5,000 aggregate and business interruption (BI) coverage up to $20,000 per property. This expansion has been backed by business and insurance groups but questioned by some taxpayer and conservation groups.
The bill would establish an advisory council to give local communities more say in the flood mapping process and it directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that manages the prorgam to take steps to improve the accuracy of maps.
It also lends support to efforts to privatize the program. FEMA must report within 18 months on a “broad range of options, methods and strategies” for privatizing the program. Also, within six months, FEMA must conduct a study to assess the capacity of the private reinsurance, capital, and financial markets to assume a portion of the program’s risk. It authorizes FEMA to secure private reinsurance to help maintain the program’s ability to pay claims and minimize its need to borrow from the Treasury.
The bill also calls for incentives for communities and individuals to take mitigation steps and enforce local building codes.
The legislation has the backing of insurance groups.
Ben McKay, senior vice president of federal government relations for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, called the legislation “a step in the right direction for strengthening the program with a critical long-term reauthorization to protect the over 5.6 million Americans who rely on flood insurance.”
“Today’s vote was an important first step for reforming the National Flood Insurance Program,” said Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and political affairs for National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. “But there’s still a long way to go. We urge the full Financial Services Committee to take up HR 1309 swiftly.”
SmarterSafer.org, a coalition of conservation and business groups, also praised the action.
“This is a concrete first step towards real reform of the NFIP program. For over 40 years, the federal government, through NFIP has provided significant subsidies for flood coverage. It has provided the wrong incentives, helping to subsidize development in harm’s way,” the group said in a press release. “The American taxpayer has been put at significant risk through this program. The Biggert bill takes significant strides towards protecting taxpayers and we now look forward to its consideration by the House Financial Services Committee.”