But opponents argue that the more certainty insurers have, the less certainty homeowners have. "The insurer gains the benefit at the expense of the insured," says Ron Reitz, president of the National Association of Public Insurance Adjusters.Reitz also rejects the argument that leaving ACC clauses in policies cuts costs for policyholders. "I do not see premiums being reduced with this reduction in coverage," he says. Other critics of the ACC, like the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), argue that -- - legal or not - an ACC clause is "bad public policy" because it gives insurers a "trapdoor" to get out of offering the basic coverage that policyholders expect and paid for, says a study by Kimberly Myers at the University of Maryland. The CFA has asked states to block ACC, but so far only California, West Virginia and Washington have restricted its use, says Myers.