Remember when Ali would predict the round when his opponent would lose? Badger is gonna take a hard one-two today when it comes to his promotion of managed repair provisions. I made the following comments about these types of provisions in Breaking News: Citizens Managed Repair Consent Form Violates Policy Language:
The legislature needs to protect consumers from Citizens choosing substandard contractors and trying to insulate itself from liability when the contractors it hand-picks fail to perform the work properly. Historically, insurers could always choose to do the repair or replacement and this election changed the insurance policy into a construction contract. With no accountability, Citizens and other insurers will certainly provide customers with the shoddiest of contractors who will charge the least amount if they can do so in the Managed Repair scenario. Florida’s legislators have bent over to appease the Florida insurance industry, but this is a step too far. Citizens is now abusing its status as a quasi-governmental actor and harming the people who are forced into having insurance with it. Accountability breeds responsibility, and that is the last thing the executives at Citizens Property Insurance want to hear.
The legislature and the insurance commissioner should stop this type of arrogant executive authority currently found in the management of Citizens Property Insurance. It was not this way fourteen years ago when I was working with those executives on The Citizens Reform Task Force. Without a means to be held accountable and redress these concerns with consumers advocates on the board of citizens, this is a company out of control and this Consent Form is just the tip of the iceberg.
In response to a LinkedIn post by Badger, I challenged Badger with the following:
The fundamental principle that ‘a man’s home is his castle’ has been a cornerstone of American liberty and property rights since the founding of our nation. This cherished idea underscores that a homeowner should be the ultimate decision-maker regarding their property—a sacred space that provides safety, identity, and stability. Alarmingly, this foundational right is under attack by insurance companies attempting to dictate how, and by whom, property damage is repaired or reconstructed.
Badger and the insurance lobby forget about these conservative values. A person’s home is their castle, and insurance companies should have zero right to say what and how they build on their private property.
Erosion of Property Rights
Property rights are a bedrock of American freedom. Insurance companies, increasingly emboldened, are undermining these rights by inserting themselves into decisions about how property owners restore their homes after disasters. Their demands that policyholders use insurer-selected contractors deprive homeowners of the autonomy to make critical decisions about their property and force them to surrender control of their own “castle” to third parties.
This overreach is antithetical to the principles of individual liberty and self-determination. A homeowner who has faithfully paid their premiums should not be coerced into accepting a contractor chosen by the insurer—often at the lowest cost and potentially at the expense of quality or suitability for the homeowner’s unique needs.
The Myth of Efficiency
Insurance companies frequently argue that their preferred contractor networks streamline claims and repairs, but this argument collapses under scrutiny. These “network contractors” often prioritize the insurer’s bottom line over the homeowner’s satisfaction, delivering substandard work or cutting corners to meet cost-saving demands. Property owners who know their homes best are denied the opportunity to hire trusted local contractors who align with their expectations and values.
This practice shifts the balance of power away from individuals and communities, consolidating it in the hands of large corporations. It is a dangerous precedent that undermines the very essence of homeownership—the freedom to make decisions about one’s most personal and significant investment.
Disguised Socialism and Corporate Overreach
The requirement to use insurer-approved contractors reflects a creeping socialist agenda disguised as corporate policy. It enforces a one-size-fits-all approach, centralizing control over individual property decisions in a way that erodes personal freedoms. This collectivist mentality, whether intentional or inadvertent, flies in the face of the American spirit of independence and innovation.
Furthermore, this trend empowers insurers, who already wield significant influence over the claims process, to dictate how people live and recover from adversity. It places the interests of profit-driven corporations above the rights of individual homeowners, fostering resentment and mistrust.
Defending the Right to Choose
To preserve the sanctity of property rights, homeowners must be empowered to choose their own contractors, ensuring that repairs and reconstructions reflect their standards, preferences, and trust. Policyholders who pay premiums in good faith expect their coverage to honor not just the letter of the policy but the spirit of fair treatment. Who should control how construction is done to a person’s property—the insurance company or the owner of the property?
Insurance companies should not be allowed to unilaterally impose their will on matters as personal as the repair of one’s home. State legislatures, courts, and regulatory bodies must recognize that such policies are a direct attack on private property rights, which are fundamental to our way of life and take decisive action to curtail this overreach.
The battle over who controls the repair of damaged property is more than an issue of insurance—it is a fight for the preservation of fundamental American freedoms. It is a rejection of the creeping corporatism and disguised socialism that threatens to erode the liberties of property owners everywhere. Badger and insurers seeking their own profit give no comment on this issue of corporate profits over private property rights.
We must demand that insurance companies respect the principle that a man’s home is his castle. Only by standing firm against this encroachment can we ensure that property rights remain protected and that the sanctity of homeownership endures for future generations.
The Knockout Punch
There are more points. Good fighters tell what is gonna happen and then save some of the best and unexpected punches for the grand finale.
Badger better put this issue at the end of the debate or all will see me speaking by myself. Maybe that is not such a bad result?
For those not at the Windstorm Insurance Conference—you may never know how bad this goes down for Steve Badger because what happens during the debate is not to be recorded. Leaders show up for this unique conference because of this special confidentiality agreement. I hope to see you at next year’s conference if you missed this one in Dallas.
Thought For The Day
“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. His hands can’t hit what his eyes can’t see. Now you see me, now you don’t. George thinks he will, but I know he won’t!”
—Muhammad Ali
