The Naples News has an article summarizing the special session in Tallahassee to date, along with providing a bullet-point list of differences and similarities in the House and Senate’s reform measures.
There’s too much good/interesting information in the article for me to do it justice within the confines of Fair Use, and my concerns about the potential for legislators to be deluded about the fiscal realities of providing coverage on a very cat-prone business have already been expressed elsewhere in my blog.
However, I will point to what I view as the most troubling provision still apparently being debated:
The House would require insurers that offer homeowners policies in other states to sell homeowners insurance in Florida if they want to offer auto insurance in Florida. The Senate’s wording is different, requiring an insurer doing business in Florida to offer all kinds of insurance in Florida that it offers “anywhere it does business.”
Folks, that is an excellent way to create availability issues in other lines of insurance which might not be so dramatically impacted by cat risk, assuming that loopholes for insurers to dance around that requirement were effectively closed.