The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-01-28
FIRE INSURANCE IN TEXAS
Some Figures from the Commits
sioncr's Office.
FIGHT OVER THE TEXAS RANGERS
Movement tO Have Them DisorEnn,
posi- lnvcstigat ton.

Austin. Texas. January e7.--The annual
reports OF the various insurance companies !
which take risks other than life. doing
business In Texas. are now being examined |
by Chief clcrl. II. =. Pollard, in the depart |
mcnt of agriculture. insurance. statistics
and history. These reports show deplor-
| able condition OF affairs According to the |
| figures submitted. none OF the companies !
have made expenses in Texas during the |
| past year. The net ratio of losses OF the
companies so far reported range from 70
per cent to 100 per cent II is claimed, and
the insurance companies have exhibited
statistics TO prove the claim that the cx.
pense to the companies to put IN force a
policy is so per cent. This being the case,
q loss ratio OF 70 per coat would bring the
business 10 a standard OF bad investment,
According to the reports. the insurance
companies are doing business at a loss In
this state. witch is = condition % affairs
tending to discourage thom.
The relief for this Is a repeal OF the
valued policy law The valued policy law
provides that in the case Of a loss, that
the fdce of the policy is lquidatcd demand
for that amount of money. II II should
occur that house is badly damaged by
FIRE, that said house was insured for $4,000,
the policy is lipuidatcd demand for that
sum. Notwithstanding the company would
be able to expcnd $1,000 or $4,000 and put
the building back as good as when the FIRE
occurred or better. The presence o. the
valued policy law has been held to be an
incentive to arson and perjury. The fol-
lowing statistics arc given by Commissioner
Rose in his report from States having the
law in force;
MISUNDERSTANDING loss ratio for eight
years previous to passage of the valued
policy law. 52,03 per cent; average loss ratio
for eight years following enactment 81 80
per cent.
Oho-Average loss ratio for ten years
previous to enactment. 1901 per cent, aver
age loss ratio for the ten years following
the enactment, 5s.27 per cont.
Observation-Disclosures loss ratio FOR Ave
years previous to enactment. 1892 per cent ;
average loss ratio for i've years following
the enactment, 53.4s per cent,
As it will be seen, the loss ratio has IN
creased in every instance where the law
|
says:
"a study OF the foregoing tables will
show that in the State of Wisconsin for
period of eight years following the enact
ment the loss ratio increased 1856 per cent
In Ohio, for ten year period following
enactment. the loss ratio increased 1928
per cent. and In Nebraska, for a period OF
Ave years. the loss ratio under this law In
creased Is. Sc per cent Now for a compa 4.
tall ha In thr..
states and measure II with that of Illinois
! a state without the valued policy law. aud
I one In which the conditions were and are
similar. Without giving fun tables. we sec
in Illinois for fourteen years tho ratio OF
losses 10 premiums is 4J.lT per cent while
the average loss ratio In the other three
i, States under The valued policy law is So TX
per cent. Now. go n step further, mcasur-
ing results in Illinois and Texas. IN which
| conditions are so near alike as TO afford n
, fair comparison. We note in Texas for a
I fifteen year period under this law loss
, ratio OF G7.20 az against i1l1 per cent In
, Illinois. Following the comparison TO a
! conclusion, the presumption Is a fair and
, reasonable one that Texas stripped of this
= huitful hindranco would have shown no
greater loss than Illinois"
This expression by Commissioner Rose Is
: made upon statistics. He says further
Il may assert without fear of contradic-
4 ton that any measure which tends TO re-
= duce the FIRE loss serves two-fold purpose
, | FIRST II saves useful values. and so protects
: | the general prosperity: second, 1t roduf es
, the cost Of insurance. and In this respect Ia
a benefit TO the individual, IL no other rea.
: sons were advanced certainly the general
! prosperity and individual interests should
y be Sufficient ground upon which TO base q
repeal If This statute.
I | "In the twentieth report OF this depart
| I lp NJ law hn
I mad not at that time figures in support Of
my views. ! have carefully oollated them
. for this report. however. and with their
, supporting weight feel ] may agam urge
| it's repeal Upon the further ground that
in my Judgment the law IL not in accord
with sound public police In that IL forces
the companies to pay something for nothing
and Ia Gn ever present incentive for weak
: humanity to destroy property to secure
ready money. and violates the basic prln-
| ciple OF an insurance contract, which II IN
demnity .. II does not protect single en-
danecrcd right as the protection Of orr
c courts is ample TO secure justice. 3 That
n It's tendency Ia to promote dishonesty aud
r crime, the burden Of which must be borne
, by the public
commissioner Hahn OF Ohio says in n
r letter: 1t is an open bid for arson. the
e rates have steadily increased since the en-
o actmcnt of this law &c say that fires
o have steadily Increased since the enactment
= Of this obnoxious law is to put 1t mildly.
n Hon VIM. a. Friclfe. commissioner OF Wis-
y consin, says This law has been the means
4 OF increasing fire losses and placing
y premium on incend1rism. Fire insurance
!. is indemnity; It should never be gain such
!, laws. together with high taxes, have pre-
vented many companies from entering the
: State and irving to or people the beneht
o OF competition. Hon. Jas Il. Waddili
= commissioner OF Missouri, says: II IL
y simply an incentive TO perjury anu arson
. Neither the insurance company nor the In
). surod should be permitted to enter into
= such contracts
'Pefore leaving this subject once Tor all
D I would most respectfully and earnestly IN
: vito your cxceliency's careful consideration