Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog : Florida Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Merlin Law Group Law Firm : Tampa, Houston, Coral Gables, Gulfport

Let me give you an example of what every claims adjuster would recognize as complete stupidity in the insurance world and that insurance lobbyists provided as an analogy to support their position that 20 year old roofs should be separated out of the replacement cost coverage. A lobbyist explained that their proposed law allowed insurance companies to take depreciation on old roofs even under a replacement cost policy. He said this was just like a situation where a five year old car is wrecked and the insurance company replaces it with a five year old car rather than a new car. Now, most of the people reading this Blog know that is a ridiculous and misleading example when applied to real property loss. The reason why is that you cannot buy a five year old roof. There is no ready market of five year old roofs to purchase. And, there is no ready market to purchase five year old nails, shingles, tiles, and whatever else is needed to repair a five year old roof. Indeed, finding and acquiring five year old parts as a replacement will be a lot more expensive than using new materials.

An insurance industry lawyer-lobbyist told the Senators that before the 2006 Replacement Cost Laws that require insurers to immediately pay replacement costs for policyholders who purchased replacement cost insurance, Florida did not require claims repairs to be paid that way. Instead, according to that lawyer-lobbyist, under actual cash value principles, insurers could hold back depreciation before repairs were made. Wrong again. Florida is one of many states that require "repairs" of structures on an actual cash value basis to be made without depreciation taken. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Gulf Breeze Cottages, 38 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1949) In Glens Falls, the Florida Supreme Court decided this very issue:

When insured structures suffer damage far less than total loss, appropriately compensable only by repair, is the measure of indemnity the cost of repair, necessary to render the structure habitable, rather than cost of repair less depreciation?

The discussion of this longstanding Florida law that all adjusters learn was strangely similar to the discussion taking place in the Senate hearing room. I wonder why the insurance lobbyists did not tell the Senators about it and its very sound logic followed by many states when considering how much must be paid when partial repairs are made? The Court noted and found:

The appellants urge us to make a distinction between the damage to a roof and to other parts of a building, going so far as to say that no contention is made that depreciation should be allowed on repairs to the ‘main portions' of a building damaged by windstorm; that even though the other parts of the building repaired after damage from a storm would be in better condition than before repair, nevertheless the insurer should not be relieved of his duty to make those repairs. Of course to the insurer there may be reason, from a practical standpoint, why the roof of a building might fall into a separate category, that being the part of the building which always feels the full force of the elements, but we must take into consideration the protection which is sought and granted when an insurance company contracts with an owner of property to insure him against loss.

The appellants and the appellee agree, and the chancellor announced, that the contract was one of indemnity. Appellants themselves in their brief concede that in the case of partial loss it is the duty of the insurer to restore the property to its condition prior to the loss (if the cost of doing so does not exceed the amount of the insurance), although the cost of doing this ‘is proportionately more than the amount of damage bears to the value of the insured building.’ Appellants do not dispute the soundness of that rule. In a contract of that character the companies undertook to save the owner from harm caused by ravages of storm, and we think the responsibility obtained without distinction between the roof and the remaining components of the structure. We are not referred to any provision of the contract making any such distinction.

Since the buildings were only partially destroyed, it was all the more necessary, for the reasons we have given, that the roofs should be in good condition in order that the structures might remain habitable, and there seems no occasion for holding that, although the repair of other parts places them in better condition than they were before the damage, a different yardstick should be employed in measuring the amount due for the repair of roofs.

Bearing in mind that the purpose of the contract was to indemnify the owner against loss, we think...that the property should have been placed in as nearly as possible the same condition that it was before the loss, without allowing depreciation for the materials used. Certainly it was not intended that the repairs should be made with materials which were not new. If depreciation were allowed, it would cast upon the owner an added expense which we do not believe was contemplated by the parties when they entered into the insurance contract.

The Florida Supreme Court therefore followed the line of reasoning that actual cash value of partial losses to real property is the amount to repair without depreciation, limited by the total amount of available insurance. It would be a strange quirk if the Florida legislature not only receded from its recent 2006 laws, but, in doing so, took away seventy years of common law protecting insurance consumers---and have the nerve to call the proposed law a consumer protection bill.

Legislators would be well served if they removed insurance industry lobbyists from their "trusted" advisors and only partly for the example I just provided. These insurance lobbyists use conservative principles as "spin." They package anti-consumer laws that will harm Floridians using phrases that appeal to conservative values, although the laws are illogically anti-consumer, but "sound good." For example, who is against the "free market" or "competition?" Nobody. So, every time these insurance industry lobbyists propose a law, they package it in such terms, although the terms do not apply. Conservative legislators should be outraged that the insurance industry lawyers and lobbyists are misappropriating the terms that describe conservative core values and using them to mislead the legislators into supporting laws that truly do nothing to foster the free market or competition, but only hurt their constituents. Conservative legislators and constituents should be further outraged that these lawyers and lobbyists have such inroads into our democratic process because of enormous wealth and resources.

Still, I must apologize if my rhetoric is too harsh regarding our elected officials . I can be as guilty as anybody of getting excited about an issue. I truly meant the following I posted in The Florida Insurance Lobby Currently Controls the Rhetoric Regarding Public Adjusting in Florida:

Everybody reading this should remember a few important aspects about our democratic process, the need to participate, and the need to reform when criticism is warranted:

1. Most elected officials truly want to make the "world, country, state" a better place to live and work. They are not corrupt, but are truly well meaning people.

2. Politicians viewpoints on issues are often ignorant because nobody knows everything. If full-time insurance lobbyists show propaganda to these elected officials that only shows that policyholders are getting something they do not deserve... you do not need to be a genius to appreciate their impressions and viewpoints.

3. Many insurance companies require and train their employees and agents to speak with elected representatives about issues in such a way to slant impressions to elected representatives about the need for laws that protect insurance company interests over consumer interests. They often have these scripted out as talking points so that the propaganda actually makes it sound like the proposed law is in favor of the policyholder---usually through the promise of lower rates which then never materialize or do so at the cost of not having coverage.

4. Unless interested people take an active role to visit with, write, and support representatives that appreciate the truth and the need for policyholder protection, the full time lobyists and employees of the insurance industry will prevail with their message.

5. You have to participate if you want justice to work in a democracy because large corporate interests have already figured this out and spend massive money and time coordinating special interests by industry.

...

7. Show up and support representatives that appreciate the consumer side of insurance. You need to encourage and provide financial support to consumer organizations...

8. If you want justice, you cannot just sit back and expect others to do it all for you. You have to work at it with your time and money. Make a commitment and stick to it. If it is important enough, make a big commitment and encourage others. One person can make a difference.

9. Do not get discouraged. I have visited with and provided information to various representatives for a number of years. Sometimes, I have felt like it is just me, a few lobbyists I have personally hired because I have to work on my cases, and just a handful of others in Tallahassee trying to push for laws that favor consumers...I feel as if I have wasted a significant amount of money and time while some other colleagues simply do nothing and provide no support. And, I still keep at it.

In contrast, the insurance lobbying effort is massive, professional, and full time. They can outspend and provide greater numbers of individuals in their efforts.

And, policyholders cannot give up because the alternative is unjust laws. Those well meaning political representatives understand the enormous wealth and resources of corporations. Contrary to popular rhetoric and demeaning criticism, most elected representatives are not "paid off" or "corrupt." They will listen if you can present a credible and persuasive impression that is based on genuine and authentic truth of an issue.

I enjoyed providing some of my knowledge and explaining my appreciation for insurance to our elected representatives yesterday. Insurance is a wonderful man-made financial product. The issues before the legislature are not easy. Insurers need to make a profit and we need to develop a larger supply of available insurance. Doing that and providing an affordable product that pays fully and promptly demands lawmaking based on truth, logic, and knowledge.

In a National Underwriter article, "Gov. Crist Says No To Proposed Insurance Deregulation Bill," Crist was on record as saying he does not support the current rate deregulation bill. Consumer groups agree with the Governor:

"The consumer groups reacted favorably to the news. Consumer Federation of America’s (CFA) director of insurance, Bob Hunter, said in a statement, “It is outrageous to claim that this bill falsely promises ‘consumer choice,’ when its purpose is to let insurance companies charge whatever high rate they want with no consumer protections in a market with virtually no competition. The bill is an insurance industry wolf wrapped in consumer-choice-like lamb clothing.”

Birny Birnbaum, executive director for the Center of Economic Justice (CEJ), told NU Online that the bill is similar to legislation that passed the legislature last year but was vetoed by Gov. Crist.

That bill would have allowed homeowners insurers to charge rates not approved by the OIR if they met certain surplus requirements.

Mr. Birnbaum called this year’s bill a “little more far-reaching,” as the capital level limits in last year’s bill do not apply.

“It’s unclear what you’re trying to accomplish with a deregulation bill,” Mr. Birnbaum said.

He noted that the Florida market has shown that it is not competitive, and so competition and market forces will not lead to favorable prices for consumers. Regulatory oversight, he stated, is the only thing protecting consumers from excessive rates."

Birny Birnbaum and Bob Hunter are just about the smartest people I know who are not employed by the insurance industry when it comes to understanding insurance rates. Florida legislators who want to do "the right thing" for Florida and their constituents should listen to them. Governor Crist and Senator Fasano have listened to these scholars and read what they have written about this proposed legislation and that is why their views make a lot more sense. Other legislators are adopting the insurance lobby’s attempts to "spin" this craziness into law and policy.

I like and respect Senator Mike Fasano. He worries about the people without a lot of financial means. He is a good public servant who is not trying to use his office for personal financial gain.

While we see eye to eye on many issues, I respectfully disagree on the issue of allowing policyholders to "opt out" of sinkhole coverage. It is a very risky proposition--like opting out of "cancer treatment" to save on health insurance premiums. Chances are you won't get it. But, if you do.....

I also think the legislation leads many Floridians into violating most mortgage agreements. Sinkhole coverage is available and most mortgages require broad all-risk coverage to be purchased. I have heard some claim that the banks will purchase sinkhole coverage as "forced placed" and charge a significant amount back to the policyholder anyway. So where's the savings in that scenario?

And, aren't we just begging for people that get stuck with slow moving sinkholes and no coverage to walk from their properties? The properties will not get fixed. Lower property values and blighted neighborhoods will also result from legislation. In this scenario, even the people who did not purchase sinkhole coverage lose. Neighbors are financially harmed when others are allowed to be cheap.

The sinkholes will continue. Many are tempted into a significant gamble of not paying some money today in return for an unlikely financial disaster tomorrow. Fasano's legislation makes many policyholders into gamblers with the financial bet of their lifetimes.

Still, I understand Fasano's concern. If people are driven from their homes because of escalating insurance costs and from other non-discretionary expenses, there is another real social problem. This is especially so for the fixed income retirees in his district. He made a choice and felt this was his best, possibly only, option to combat that issue. I suggest he keep working on other alternatives.

I disagree because he equates "savings" of premiums without also taking away the total impact of policyholders not having insurance when the "big one" starts destroying their nest egg investment. He should also factor the total impact the legislation has on all our property values when people walk away from or cannot fix their sinkhole damaged homes. My guess is that if he made such a calculation, the positive number he cites in the following discourse with the Tampa Tribune would be a large negative loss for individuals and our community at large.

Choice in sinkhole coverage

The Tampa Tribune
Published: October 24, 2009

Regarding "A sinking feeling in Pasco and Hernando" (Our Opinion, Sept. 28):

I disagree with your claim that "property owners in sinkhole-prone Pasco and Hernando counties are getting shafted by the governor and the Legislature." Allowing residents in these two counties to choose for themselves whether they want full sinkhole coverage or catastrophic ground cover collapse coverage gives them economic freedom that was previously prohibited by law.

When I sponsored legislation in 2007 to allow Citizens Property Insurance Corp. customers the option of choosing to drop full sinkhole coverage, it was because insurance rates were extremely high in these two counties due to the number of sinkhole-related claims.

Residents who live in areas that were not sinkhole prone were stuck paying the same rates as those who were more likely to experience sinkhole activity. This was not a "stunt" as you proclaim but an opportunity to give people more choice and control over the decisions they make based on their budget situations and geographic location.

At my request, Citizens supplied some information to demonstrate just how successful the sinkhole option has been. As of June 30 of this year Citizens had a total of 43,881 policies written in Pasco. Of those policies 80.5 percent of homeowners chose to exclude sinkhole coverage. This resulted in a total premium savings of $38,792,481.

During the same period, a total of 22,014 homeowners were covered by Citizens in Hernando County. Of that number, 65.5 percent of residents chose to not purchase full sinkhole coverage. This translates into a savings of $12,417,368.

Combined, homeowners in both counties saved $51,209,849 in premiums.

The $51 million saved in premiums are dollars that remained in the pockets and bank accounts of everyday people. Many of these individuals are seniors living on fixed incomes, families struggling through tough economic times and those trying to make ends meet week after week.

This past spring the Legislature passed a bill that allows private companies in Pasco and Hernando counties to do what Citizens was given the opportunity to do in 2007. With the possibility of premium savings being in the millions of dollars, the "stench" and "scheme" you call this legislation is totally unfounded. I doubt any resident who chooses to have their premiums nearly halved would argue in favor of being forced to keep full sinkhole coverage.

Mike Fasano of New Port Richey represents District 11 in the Florida Senate

The article quoted Barney Bishop, the Executive Director for Associated Industries of Florida as advocating the following:

Florida insurance regulators are failing in their duties if they don't make the state-backed Citizens Property Insurance Corp. raise property insurance rates by 10 percent across the board, a business group lobbyist said Tuesday.

Barney Bishop III, president of Associated Industries of Florida, said it's ''astonishing'' that the state-backed insurer would not increase rates on all policies by 10 percent.

''It is our position that every rate should go up,'' Bishop told representatives from the Office of Insurance Regulation. ''The rates haven't been actuarially sound for the last five years.'

In response, Belinda Miller of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation disagreed:

Miller argued the 10 percent was a cap set by lawmakers and not intended to be applied equally to all Citizens' policy holders.

''We don't want to increase rates too quickly because people would have a hard time paying for it.'' Miller said. ''Nor do we want to have a rate that is not adequate to pay their claims. Our concern is to make sure that this strikes the appropriate balance.''

This is a topic that Belinda Miller knows very well. She served with me on the Citizens Property Insurance Mission Review Task Force. I wrote about this issue last January in Headlines And Reality. There, I wrote:

The Citizens Mission Review Task Force made a significant recommendation at its meeting on Tuesday. Prior testimony was that the average Florida rate hike, which would be approved by the Office of Insurance Regulation, would almost certainly be higher than 30%. We recommended to the Florida Legislature that they to pass a statute to cap that rate increase at 10%. Without this law, the rate would probably go up over 30% on a statewide basis.

So, what do you think a proper headline would be in a newspaper article reporting on this outcome? Panel Votes to Cap Rates. 10% Maximum Rate Increase Proposed. How about, Panel Says No to Unlimited Rate Increases?

By Jingo, no way! Newspaper editors must think they need headlines full of sensationalism and fear to catch a reader’s attention. These were some of the headlines I found on a Google search Wednesday morning:

• Citizens Property Insurance Plans to Increase Rates
• State Panel Backs Rate Hike of up to 20 Percent for Citizens Insurance
• Citizens Should Hike Insurance Rates, Task Force Says
• Hike Citizens Property Insurance Corp's Premiums, Florida Panel Urges

We never found that the rates should be hiked. Instead, a bunch of experts explained why they thought a "fair" rate was going to result in a huge increase because Citizens has been charging an amount of premium that is not "sound." Even the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation indicated that a fair rate for Citizens was one that could have an increase above 30%.

In 2006, the Florida Legislature froze Citizens rates to combat skyrocketing premiums. The Legislature then passed a law mandating that Citizens had to charge "actuarial sound rates" by January 1, 2010.

I never voted to raise rates. I advocated and then argued for the cap because I felt it was going to make insurance unaffordable for many if the rates jumped overnight.

It is obvious that Belinda Miller is correct and Barney Bishop is spewing the propaganda of the insurance industry that is a big supporter of Associated Industries. The entire debate and method contemplated that overall rates would go up, but it would vary.

What is happening is that lobbying organizations supporting the insurance industry have already paid significant monies to the leaders in the Florida legislature. Now, they have to start raising the issues important to them for the next legislative session. Those lobbyists cannot come out and say, “hey, we paid you all this money to have dinner with you, go to golf and raise money for your next campaign, so vote our way.” That would be stupid because those legislators would be any “easy mark” for being in the pocket of those lobbyists. Then, what would they say to their electorate?

The smart way to do it is to have people like Barney Bishop say that the problem is Citizens not charging enough. Public relations experts have people like Barney Bishop also change the debate to one of “free choice” so that State Farm and others will no longer have to worry about getting approval for a fair rate. It is all part of the charade to allow many bought and paid for legislators to vote in a demanded manner by the insurance industry.

It is fortunate that some leaders in Florida, like Governor Crist, remember the public promises they make to the people are far more important than privately taking excessive amounts of campaign money from huge insurance corporations knowing that clandestine public relations campaigns will be run by those corporations to mask the private “deal” made with the devil.

I am going to propose to United Policyholders or other consumer groups that we try to find out who is taking the money and disclose which politicians have switched their votes since 2006 to allow rates to go up. They might as well be honest about it the next time election time rolls around.

My longstanding view is that “hardening” of structures is important public policy for coastal states. It should be encouraged and reflected in rate regulation, building codes, and taxation policy. The best loss is one that does not happen. The second best loss is one which is less severe as a result of preventative measures.

On Thursday, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation issued a letter responding to State Farm’s requests for the elimination of certain discounts. It approved many, but also called for State Farm to provide greater information regarding the issue of eliminating or reducing rates for those who “hardened” buildings in return for lower premiums:

“The changes to State Farm Florida’s mitigation credits contained in this file are not approved. As discussed on prior occasions, an alternate mitigation credit is allowable under Florida regulations; however, such credits must be supported by a “detailed study” pursuant to Section 69O-170.017, Florida Administrative Code and other pertinent regulations. If State Farm Florida chooses to file alternate mitigation credits in accordance with the rule, the study of the alternate credits may best be performed by the proprietor of the model to ensure explicit documentation as provided in the current approved ARA study. Some items of significance that should be addressed in the study, if one is conducted, include but are not limited to:

1. Explicit documentation with respect to the reflection of all code wind speeds.

2. Explicit support for the selected base structure. This should include an explanation of how it complies with Section 627.0629, Florida Statutes and the following data:

a. The expected hurricane losses in total
b. The expected hurricane losses for each group of discount features
c. The expected hurricane losses for policyholders receiving no discount

3. Discounts must reflect all features that reduce windstorm loss. Further, areas with a higher resistance to wind speed must reflect higher discounts.

4. Include detailed support to show base rates are consistent with the base risk that is not receiving mitigation discounts.”

The important thing for everybody to notice in the Miami Herald article is that State Farm is not the only insurance company behind this. A number of elected officials who cater to the insurance industry and Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (which is part of the Florida Government) obviously conspired with others to break the promises made to Floridians:

“…more than 700,000 other Florida consumers who spent big money to fortify their homes -- could see their ``wind mitigation'' discounts dramatically reduced.

Insurers, led by State Farm Florida, are complaining that the discounts for installing shutters and other protections have become so popular that they are undercutting the industry's bottom line.

Last year, citing the cost of the discounts, State Farm asked for a 47.1 percent rate increase. The state said no, but the Legislature agreed to review how the discounts are tallied. The first public hearing is Wednesday in Tallahassee.

Bressner thinks it is ``counter-intuitive'' for insurers to want to strip away incentives that encourage policyholders to make their homes better able to withstand a windstorm.

State Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, who serves on the Senate's banking and insurance committee, recalled State Farm's president testifying on behalf of the discounts.

``This is what they wanted and this is what they got,'' Fasano said. ``Now they want to take away [the discounts] from homeowners. That's a promise they've broken.''

Still, lawmakers are willing to listen to the industry.

``We want to be sure that the discounts we're offering are right,'' said State Rep. Bryan Nelson, the Apopka Republican who sponsored the law mandating the review.

``We're reducing premiums every year,'' said Carol Everhart, a member of the governing board with Citizens Property Insurance, the state's largest insurer. ``But what we're doing isn't based on a valid study.''

If our elected officials and those regulating our insurance industry in Florida want to know what the insurance industry hopes to gain from this new maneuver, now and in the future, they should request records from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, which is a governmental-not private-entity. They should ask for Citizens’ officers and managerial employees to explain all their discourse with other insurers, legislators and lobbyists regarding this topic for the past several years.

We should also applaud all the elected representatives that stand up to the insurance companies. Before the next election cycle, I plan to draft a detailed outline for everyone to review that delineates which elected officials in Tallahassee are really for policyholders versus those who work for the insurance industry. The advertisements by some politicians were completely fraudulent on this last year. It’s about time that the local electorates understand who really works for them and who works for Big Insurance.

By electing Frank Artiles, a Florida public adjuster, for the Florida House of Representatives in South Florida, I don't see those kinds of things happening. My law firm is dedicated to helping this become a reality, and we need your help.

On Thursday, August 13, we are co-hosting a fundraiser for Frank Artiles with Miami-Dade County Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz in our Coral Gables office from 6 pm to 7:30pm. Frank is a wonderful person and will make a devoted public servant. We need more bright individuals like Frank Artiles in our legislature who are willing to stand up for the average insurance consumer as Senator Mike Fasano does.

The Merlin Law Group is also presenting a continuing education seminar for public adjusters earlier the same day. At 4:00, I will make an hour-long presentation, Ethical Issues in Presenting Claims. I expect this class to be very interactive, as they usually are when a roomful of public adjusters come together to learn and share with fellow professionals. I have applied for 1 ethics credit for public adjusting continuing education for this class. The following topics are on the agenda:

• Unauthorized/Unlicensed Practice of Law: How to recognize it and to ensure you do not do it

• Unauthorized/Unlicensed Public Adjusting: The legal ramifications of contractors and others associated with the building trade who are not licensed public adjusters and who negotiate insurance recoveries with insurance adjusters

• Code of Ethics: Discussion of the public adjuster's ethical requirement to "put the duty for fair and honest treatment of the claimant above the adjusters own interests in every instance."

• Public Adjusting Contracts: Discussion of waiting periods, signing proofs of loss, appearing for EUOs, excessive fees, and all questions you may have on these topics.

The seminar is in the Westin Colonnade Hotel immediately adjacent to our Coral Gables office. We will host a cocktail party/fundraiser thereafter in our Coral Gables office at 6.

Everybody is welcome to attend the fundraiser. All public adjusters along Florida's east coast should make their way down that afternoon for education, political support, and fun.

You never know what can happen in life until you try. We need your help on this endeavor for Frank.

Public Adjusters can register for the Ethics Seminar by clicking here.

One of the sad realities about elected legislators is that some are simply not able to understand issues. Like deer in headlights, some have agendas but little ability to logically comprehend competing issues and analyze the crucial impact laws will have if not drafted precisely. Happily, Mike Fasano is not one of those legislators.

You should never pre-judge a person's ability to reason by the lack of formal education. Mike Fasano did not graduate from a traditional high school, due to problems after the death of his father. His very humble background is apparent in his concern for those that are less affluent. Many of his constituents are retired and on fixed incomes. When you consider his background and the demographics of his electorate, it is no wonder his primary insurance concern is that it is affordable and not a sham—meaningful insurance is necessary for the elderly and disenfranchised.

Fasano told me of a couple that had worked hard to pay off their mortgage. Unfortunately, they let their insurance lapse and their house suffered a severe uninsured loss. I told him that I have seen that scenario many times and that there is some value to the mortgage escrow requirements which require property owners to pay for insurance and property taxes. Some simply lose the premium or tax notices or forget to pay bills. It happens a lot more after some reach that goal of paying off the mortgage.

My impression is Senator Fasano could have been a priest or involved in some other charitable endeavor for his fellow brother and sister. He never mentioned any concern other than for the working class, the elderly, the retired, and how others in business or government could help protect them. While I have seen his contempt for others in some public hearings, in my interview with him, he expressed only interest in helping our State and its citizens and without a harsh word.

After meeting and spending time with Senator Fasano, I can appreciate why his constituents vote for him. He is dedicated to helping them and experienced enough to understand how he can help them. In the future, I expect Mike Fasano will find some other noble means to help people rather than use his talents for personal financial fortune or fame.

As am I, he is a strong supporter of Governor Charlie Crist, Senate President Jeff Atwater, and Insurance Commissioner Kevin McCarty. It would not surprise me to find him working in Washington, D.C. someday. Until then, I will try to provide him my understanding of insurance as he battles through those various complex issues. At least he appreciates and understands the difficulty of these issues which some of his elected colleagues simply do not.