Katrina Victims Lose In Appeals Court
Yahoo News (h/t NonnyMouse)
Hurricane Katrina victims whose homes and businesses were destroyed when floodwaters breached levees in the 2005 storm cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The case could affect thousands of rebuilding residents and business owners in Louisiana. Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute in New York, said in June that a ruling against the industry could have cost insurers $1 billion.[..]
The decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who in November sided with policyholders arguing that language excluding water damage from some of their insurance policies was ambiguous.
Duval said the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God - such as excessive rainfall - and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina's landfall.
But the appeals panel concluded that "even if the plaintiffs can prove that the levees were negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that the breaches were due to this negligence, the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs' policies unambiguously preclude their recovery."
God forbid the insurance agencies have to pay out for these people with devastating losses.
Come on folks, you don't believe bush packed the courts with ring wing judges for nothin' do you...rove knew what he was doin'////////
God forbid the insurance companies have to uphold their end of the bargain.
They sell their services based upon the idea that they'll "be there for you" should something bad happen -- but when the time comes for them to uphold the deal, they look for every way possible to get out of it.
So the insurance company is supposed to pay for anything bad that possibly happened to these people? Where can I sign up for that policy?
Flood damage was excluded, which is what you would expect for an insurance policy in New Orleans. I wish these folks all the luck in the world, and hope that the government can help them get back on their feet, but it's silly to suggest that the insurance companies are obligated to pay for everything, just because they pay for anything.
H.
And I believe that Bush Rove and Cheney are guilty of diverting funds to fix the levees into the War in Iraq, and probably they gave that money to the insurance companies to buy off these judges to let the companies off the hook.
Dubya's role: New Orleans as THE HOUSE OF THE FALLEN SON
I think that this is really going to backfire on the insurance companies. Basically, for the people affected by Hurricane Katrina, their insurance was worthless. All the premiums they paid over many years were for nothing. I bet that there will be few people who will be willing to give any more money to these companies, and you can bet that the rest of us are taking a long, hard look at our own insurance policies to look for similar loopholes. We so desperately need reform in the way that insurance is sold and managed. This is a damn shame.
So these people are hosed and the insurance companies win even though a flood on your property is still a flood. This judge is basically saying if they want money they have to go after the city and/or the state for negligence. Riiiiiight.
This shows that insurance companies need to be taken over by the government. Perhaps this is the time to pressure our Democrats in Congress to do that.
The courts are packed with Chicago School corporations are always right cultists
jr., I totally agree with you.
America will be paying and paying and paying of the Bush Presidency and the judges he has appointed for years.
I don't know if America will ever get back on its feet.
Thanks Chimpy and his willful dupes including the Democrats who have gone along with his disastrous decisions.
-GSD
If people can get enormous amounts of money from the insurance company for things not covered in their policy, then how can the insurance companies write new policies? The relectance of the insurers to cover property in post-Katrina NOLA is well known, and they would be insane to write new policies if the courts aren't going to enforce them as written.
You have your homeowner's insurance, and you have your flood insurance (required in New Orleans and many other places if you're still paying off the house.) There is simply no way that a reasonable resident of New Orleans would think that a flood was covered by homeowner's insurance. Wind damage, yeah. But not a flood. That's what flood insurance is for.
As far as act of dog vs. act of man, the human element will always be there - if the levees fail, then by definition men failed to make them strong enough. Also, clearly, they will fail at the weakest point and the engineers will come along after the fact and determine why that was the weakest point. It was still caused by a hurricane. If some guys came along at high tide and dynamited the levee, that's arguably an act of man.
A billion dollars to repair the live's of hundreds of thousand or millions of people??? --- That would be the cost of 3 DAYS in IRAQ! --- We cant afford to help those people! --- Look how much good we do in Iraq every 3 days...
Hey I got a product I would like to sell you, how does this sound?
1. You will make payments as long you have it.
2. The first time you use it will probably not work, and..
3. We won't sell you more or if we do it will cost WAY more than the first one.
Any buyers? Hello, hello is this thing on?
ummm, Houngan? That is precisely what insurance is for. You pay them in case shit happens. If shit don't happen they keep your money, but if shit DOES happen they have to take care of it. The insurance wasn't free! They had to pay for it. Monthly. For Years! I don't understand your position.
"God forbid the insurance companies have to uphold their end of the bargain.
They sell their services based upon the idea that they’ll “be there for you” should something bad happen — but when the time comes for them to uphold the deal, they look for every way possible to get out of it."
Would you make a deal without reading the deal????
We have schools in the USA, which almost everybody attends. These schools teach them how to read. It's called READ YOUR POLICY! I live in a "flood zone"...I have to buy a separate policy to protect my home from flood damage. If you are too lazy to read your policy, or too cheap to buy flood insurance when you live in a flood area (it isn't all that expensive...if you can afford to own a home in the first place, you can afford it) you get what you deserve...so don't bitch about it afterwards and expect somebody else, or the government, to wipe your butt. Insurance companies are like any other businesses...they are there to make money, not to be charities.
You know, If I had Medical insurance, but wasnt covered for Dental, I wouldnt expect BC/BS to pay my dentist bill.
If they had flood insurance, then they should be covered by the insurance companies and shame on the ones that dont.
If they didnt, then they should NOT expect to get paid.
This whole something for nothing attitude has always puzzled me...
please insurance companies are in business to deny claims...
Ah, well isn't THAT just Double-Plus Good!!!!
To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld: "You go into a flood with the insurance coverage you have, not the insurance coverage you want."
Or something like that.
Ahhh, AmeriKKKa - the land of the fleeced and the home of the slaves.
another fuckin travesty met with deafening silence.
The media should swarm these judges homes and stalk them for months.
Did Jesus ever show up after Katrina?
There is a great way to get back at these insurance companies - print their names, then everyone boycott them. Go with a different company. That might get their attention.
Every home owner in the Gulf Coast should be fully aware that there are two insurance policies: general homeowner's policy (covers all but flood) and flood insurance. You get many notices about the need for separate flood coverage along with your general policy. These people did not pay for flood insurance, and it's undeniable that flooding is what destroyed their homes. I don't understand how someone could live below sea level surrounded on three sides by water and not have flood insurance.
You don't really think corporations should be made to pay, do you? What do you think all those campaign contributions are for? Us common folks are just the vassals of the "ruling class elite" and the corporations who fund them. Sounds like paranoid conspiracy crap, until you take a look around at our country today.
www.levees.org
Did anyone really think there would have been any other outcome for these poor people trying to get insurance underwriters to do the right thing rather than be more concerned about their bottom line for investors?
Chalk up another one for the most corrupt administration on earth as well as the wonderful people on K street that keep funneling millions in payouts and perks for a bought and paid for Congress. No doubt that Bushco's buddies in the insurance industry are smiling from ear to ear while the land developers are circling like sharks waiting for the moment they can buy distressed properties for penny's on the dollar.
Welcome to George Bush's America, a country just overflowing with "compassionate conservatism".
Ug, the comments are getting worse - nyguy, "stalk them for months?"
Everyone, the plaintiffs did not have flood insurance. They had a different kind of insurance that does not cover floods, and says so explicitly in the contract.
I'm sympathetic to the plaintiffs - my parents let their flood insurance lapse before the storm, and all they got was a few hundred dollars for wind damage from their homeowner's insurance. They got no money for the five feet of water in the first floor of their house, and they didn't expect any.
Do you get it? It's two different kinds of insurance. The plaintiffs have no legal footing and are trying to get a settlement, or a sympathetic judge who will give them money in clear violation of the contract they signed.
Why act surprised? Well, at least the Supreme Court is there to rectify any errors in this ruling.
Well. This will be a real incentive to rebuild NO. Will the last person out of NO please turn off the lights (if the power is still on from the next flood).
so much for the idea that private industry and free enterprise takes care of all.
insurance insures everything except what you need it to insure.
Obviously, emotion has trumped reason in this debate. For that matter, it's that way for EVERY debate we have in this country.
Insurance policies are contracts. They cover casualties that are listed in the policy. A judge can not rewrite the contract of insurance to help a homeowner whose loss is not covered under the terms of the policy as written.
It's that simple. If the language is clear as to what is covered and what is not, the judge must construe and enforce the policy as written, whether or not it's fair to one party or the other.
In Florida, many homeowners have to have 3 policies. Basic homeowners (fire, theft, liability,non-named storms), windstorm coverage (for named storms like hurricanes), and flood. If you don't carry flood insurance, and get flooded, you're on your own.
The homeowners is pricey, the windstorm astronomical, the flood is a bargain.
Sounds like they didn't have flood insurance so no coverage.
The entire system is a failure. Whether it was the governments response, or changing the bankruptcy laws making it harder to start over. There has to be a better way of providing coverage to homeowners that are hit by these catastrophic events.
Even as a kid I could tell that the republican party was the party of big business and the democrats were the party for the people. One of my biggest fears about Bush taking office was that he would give so much power to corporate America. Course it's not just bush - but geez- look what 6 years of republican rule have done to our laws! Corporations keep getting stronger and stronger - it's very very sad and it is going to take decades to undo what they've done - if we ever can. I feel sorry for my kids.
Once again everyone...If you dont have insurance, you are not covered. Real simple.
Jonathon @ 6:
Perhaps, but homeowner's insurance is REQUIRED by every mortgage company in the world. So, unless you own your home outright, not purchasing this worthless insurance is not an option.
This is a devastating ruling for Louisiana. The economy has been destroyed already and now recovery doesn't seem to be an option either.
As a resident of south Louisiana, I am seeing the results of the insurance debacle first hand. Prior to Katrina, Louisiana was ranked near the top for citizens who took advantage of the national flood insurance program. Sadly, many who had both homeowners and flood insurance are still getting screwed by these companies. The homeowners policy won't pay for water damage, even if the house didn't flood but the roof was ripped off causing water to enter the house. The flood policies won't pay because the house didn't actually flood but was inundated by water after the roof was damaged. Those whose homes actually flooded and had flood insurance are finding that even though they held a policy that policy is not coming anywhere close to paying what it costs to clean up the damage from having several feet of vile and toxic water sitting in their homes for weeks. And their homeowners policy won't pay for any of it. So, unless they are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for repairs while fighting to get what they paid for, they are stuck. Two years later, there are still areas of the city that look like they did two years ago. And I am not only referring to the 9th Ward, but also Lakeview and the entire parish of St. Bernard. And make no mistake, the damage was not from the hurricane, but from the negligence of the COE, and they have admitted such.
So here we are 2 years later, the promises Bush made from Jackson Square still unmet, and now the water resources bill, currently under consideration in the House, is headed for a veto by Mr. Bush. This is a bill that would help with coastal restoration and hurricane protection. This morning's Times-Picayune carried an article regarding this bill. It states that all of our state reps have vowed to vote against the veto should it come. Rep. Baker (R), suggested that the Senate wait till after the August recess to keep Bush from issuing a pocket veto, but the Senate will likely pass the bill before the recess. Any takers on a bet that the pocket veto is exactly what will happen? A large portion of the fuel needed to run America passes through or is refined in south Louisiana. It seems that this administration can find trillions of dollars to throw down a rathole in Iraq, but when it comes to protecting American citizens, infrastructure and keeping promises made, well, it's just too expensive.
Jim @ 29:
Ahh yes, BUT didn't our Supreme Unified Executive Commander of the Galactic Federation declare an National Emergency? Does that not automatically qualify these affected citizens the type of government assistance to get them back on their feet? Last I heard, most of those 'folks' haven't recieved any type of real assistance other than formalgahyde ridden trailors and being re-located to relatives in neighboring states?
That's because only kids believe that nonsense.
No
What about Trent Lott's insurance policy? Did it pay up?
Why is news about insurance companies never good?
Jay @ 42:
Ooooohhhh sssnaaaap!
Why doesn't someone start a campaign to publicize *how much money* these policy holders paid *into* their insurance accounts? It's gotta be a lot of money, no?
Looks like Jay is both a Republic and an insurance agent. Another compassionate conservative.
compassionate conservatism......ummmmm...yeah rrrrrrrrrrrrrright
Here's the problem: after the federal flood, a lot of insurance adjustors listed "flooding" as the cause of the damage to so many houses here in Louisiana, whether it was the broken levees or storm surge or rain that had come in from blown-away roofs or broken windows. In areas that escaped the broken levees, some neighborhoods flooded because the pumps weren't turned on. If you live(d) in "Flood Zone C" you're not required to have flood insurance and if you live in an area that's never flooded, why would you buy it, especially if you're poor or on a fixed income. If you had flood insurance, you had a reasonable chance of recovering part of your losses. But then the insurance company would come back and deny payment because they didn't agree with the adjustors opinion. What often happened is the insurance company would say, "Well, you didn't have flood insurance, so we're not required to pay." Then there's the whole other issue of whether the flooding was an "act of God" or "man-made" and how the insurance companies raided the Federal Flood Insurance fund to pay for things that weren't flood-related at all.
We're under the mistaken assumption that insurance is here for us, when, in truth, we're here for their bottom line.
SOoooo.....
Just so we're all on the same page here, hurricanes DON'T cause excessive rainfall?
They must have lied to me at the Navy weather forecasting school then.
And what exactly was it that caused the levees to fail?
I guess excessive rainfall had nothing to do with that. Must have been the relative humidity.
Every home owner in the Gulf Coast should be fully aware that there are two insurance policies: general homeowner’s policy (covers all but flood) and flood insurance. You get many notices about the need for separate flood coverage along with your general policy. These people did not pay for flood insurance, and it’s undeniable that flooding is what destroyed their homes. I don’t understand how someone could live below sea level surrounded on three sides by water and not have flood insurance
I agree.
AHHHHH....something bad happened to me, someone's got to pay
Jay @ 38:
Who's responsible for building and maintaining the levee's.....do you think they should bear some responsibility?....
Yes flooding did do the damage....But what caused the flooding......
Any of the 9/11 money left over somewhere, or did it just vanish? The poor get poorer.
I hope the Bush supporters are getting everything they voted for in Bush and then some. I wonder what they will tell their children when their kids can't find jobs, can't afford decent housing, can't pay for health care, have no social safety net nor retirement options, and live in a state-controlled militarized country where one has to have "permission" form the state to travel, and god-forbid become a non-citizen should their state mandated ID card malfunction.
mudshark @ 52:
It wasn't the insurance companies responsibility, so why should they pay?
David @ 47:
Right, 'cause ANYBODY who disagrees with you MUST be a Republic.
Or, did you mean Republican? Did your emotions overcome your brain while you were typing?
Keep playing the "Democrats vs. Republican" game. It's obviously gotten us really far up to this point.
Damn, some of you people are SO predictable.
The Insurance Companies are in business to make money. they can't be bothered with actually paying out money.
My wife can't get Health Insurance because one time a Doctor goofed on his diagnosis and said she had an inlarged
Thyroid, turns out it is the norm for women in their 50's. But since it is now on her record she is un-insurable.
She can only get Catastrophic Coverage. Last week she had a physical and they did a cartiogrraph, nothing wrong,
but they put her in the Hospital for two nights for "observation". That two night stay cost us (and we are retired on fixed income) $10,000.
Insurance in America is a joke. Just think about this fact:
An Uncovered Individual has to pay 33% higher rate for medical service than an HMO.
Our country has gone to hell in a hand-basket, and the Corporations are leading the way.
the fact that somebody lived in New Orleans and didn't possess a separate flood insurance policy is kind of hard to believe. That being said, the fact that we're dumping $ into Iraq that could go to help these people is criminal.
Tim in Japan @ 50:
Tim...some people will do and say anything to get out of their end...I never did trust the ins industry...But I like the relative humidity remark....a whole hell of alot of relative humidity.having ridden out 3 hurricanes and seen rain come down so thick that you can't see you own hand out in front of your own face.....I remember tracking Katrina and thinking why haven't they alerted anyone yet...when she came through the staights of Florida and flared up....I knew she was going to be a real problem.
Tim in Japan @ 50:
Google the COE report where they specifically state poorly constructed levees and accept responsibility.
Yes, hurricanes cause excessive rainfall. But the storm went to the east of the city, meaning we were on the "dry" side of the storm. When Katrina passed there was minor street flooding, then the levees broke the next day and all hell broke loose. Also, St. Bernard parish can thank the COE for the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) for the near total destruction of the parish. From it's conception residents and experts feared that it would act as a funnel for storm surge directly into the parish. Turns out it worked like a charm, and it still has not been closed, even though has rarely been used for shipping.
Throw in good ole LIE-berman, who, after the storm vowed to conduct a Congressional investigation into why the levees failed. But then, in true DINO fashion, he decided that an investigation would solve nothing and it was more important to look forward than it was to find out why a major American city was allowed to drown.
Here's the simple truth: ALL insurance (whether flood, health, pet, you name it...) is a *one way street*: YOUR money goes in, and the goal of the insurance company is to make sure it never comes out.
Conservatives will say: yeah, that's great - it's simply the essence of the free market.
Liberals like myself will say: there is a fundamental flaw with this structure. Perhaps insurance companies are not the answer at all. People need to pool their resources and pay into a fund that *is not for profit* but for exactly the kind of unexpected disaster that Katrina was.
Simply put: "the market" is only good for making money - NOT for actually getting anything done.
If you want a service that is actually useful to the people who *pay into it* then you are gonna have to take profit out of the equation, because no matter how much conservatives "believe" that the market is "always right" it will never be true.
"the market" is fundamentally amoral: it does not make a distinction between what is good for the country and what i good for their pocket books -- it only sees profit, not morality.
That's where our constitution comes in: it says the government is responsible for "regulating" these things. And we need a fundamental paradigm shift in how we look at insurance... otherwise policy holders will continue to throw *billions* of dollars at something that never gives back.
These policies did not cover flood damage and the plaintiffs should have been aware of this. It is common knowledge that flood insurance is available and as mentioned it is a bargain (federally run).
Asking insurance companies to cover damage that was excluded in a contract will lead to zero coverage in the future. If an insurance company cannot uphold a contract then writing a policy in the area is not a great idea for the future.
These people saved money because they made a decision to not purchase flood insurance. After the storm they certainly wished they had flood insurance but they did not. They must be somewhat jealous of those who chose to have flood insurance.
Then again these homeowners probably though that the state and/or federal government would bail them out and this is a rational belief. There is a history of the federal government doing such things. The people don't pay the cost for living in hurricane prone regions (or not the full cost) because of bailouts and state/federal insurance programs.
I am sorry for these people and do believe they should get a govt payout due to the levees issue (shoddy design/upkeep). That doesn't mean an insurer should have to pay..
There's a lot of guessing going on around here by people who probably haven't read either the insurance contracts or the legal opinions.
Outrageous!!! I always find it incredulous that these insurance agencies think we just give them our money for nothing. For some strange reason they don't believe they need to payup when the bad things we're insured against happen. They seem to think we want to pay our premiums and get nothing in return for them. That the courts uphold this chicanery is absolutely intolerable. A reckoning is coming, big fat corporations... and you're not gonna like it!
Mr. Anon @ 56:
I would think the Govt should of stepped up and helped these folks out......thats one of the reasons I pay my taxes.........are the levee's ins?just asking and if not why aren't they?
D. Tree Says: in 62... agree wholeheartedly with you. After a devastating fire, I don't have insurance any longer. I have a nice savings account that will help me out (provided the banks don't fail) in the event I lose everyting again. F the insurance companies and their stupid little clauses, loopholes, and rules...
It does do a neat job of getting rid of the only Blue State and City in the south doesn't it?
I saw a 60 Minutes piece about Government Flood/Hurricane Insurance...
It was an interesting idea, they sort of blind-sided these people.
The supposedly invited this RICH WHITE FOLKS to a discussion about welfare, and government largess, and, as you would suspect, these rich-ees were just AGHAST at the "Cadillac driving Welfare Mothers" and the usual Right Wing fake BS straw-man arguments.
The hook was, these folks were ALL people who had had their luxury homes, that were built in a Hurricane prone area, rebuilt using really cheap government insurance and loans...
More then once in every case.
Guess what they ALL said, when it was pointed out to them that THEY were using taxpayer funds, to prop up THEIR voluntary decision to build in a natural disaster prone area...
"Oh, that's totally different, yada-yada...Not the same at ALL as Welfare...."
The point really is, these are RICH people with Lawyers and power, and they can work the system for what they want.
Anyone think if this was a MEGA CORPORATION that the insurance companies refuse to pay for, they wouldn't have a phalanx of lawyers to fight this forever...
The point is, the Republic party, NO MATTER WHAT, Sh*ts on the poor and middle class, and only supports the rich.
That has never WILL NEVER change.
What HAS CHANGED is Lee Atwater, Rove, and their evil ilk have found a way to convince the poor to vote AGAINST their own self interest time after time after time....
What's wrong with Kansas, as the book by Franks showed is, is wrong with the USA in general.
I especially love that you have to carry insurance. They don't have to actually pay or honor the legal agreement, but you do.
mudshark @ 66:
Excellent question... the fed govt let the people down. That's unconscionable and should be illegal... as you said, you paid your taxes...
but if the flood was caused by an act of god(Katrina)and was the reason the water level rose too high and caused the levee's to break.....Had the levee's broken without Hurricane Katrina I would say that they should of had flood ins.......but thats not the case is it..
capnmike @ 15:
Hey Dumbass... did you not read the article? It says these people HAD flood insurance. It's just a matter of insurances companies not differentiating between an act of some invisible sky wizard and an act of negligence that causes a flood.
Duval said the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God - such as excessive rainfall - and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina’s landfall.
It's hairsplitting in order for the insurance companies to avoid paying out the money that they should be paying out. Nothing more. This has nothing to do with being a charity it has to do with providing a service for which you have already been paid. If I pay a builder to build a house and they decide one day that despite having my money they're not going to build my house they are in fact NOT providing the service. It doesn't matter why they are refusing to provide the service - they are.
Of course if the levies hadn't been there in the first place NOLA would have been under water anyway so the whole question is ridiculous.
MargeAggedon @ 70:
Yep... that's pretty twisted logic, isn't it?! These things make me crazy! All of us middle class and lower income folks are gonna have to say a big fat NO to these double standards. I'm not certain there's any other way to go... other than take it to the streets and it's difficult to get everyone riled up at the same time you are...
I see two possible avenues for these people.
1. Call Fred Phelps and other asshole evangelists to testify for them. They've already been saying publicly that God caused the hurricane so if the levies failed it must be God's doing and therefore the insurance companies must pay. I'd LOVE to see the insurance companies try to debate what precisely the will of the invisible sky wizard is.
2. Sue the Federal Government for negligence. This court said that this event was caused by human negligence. Ok, so go with that. If I build a house and it collapses killing 5 people I can be sued for negligence. So, these people should sue the FedGov using the court ruling that this was negligence as a basis for the case.
The Govt should of stepped up and the Ins Companies should of stepped up...This admin squandered an opportunity to make things happen ,create jobs and help people....but what would you expect from the party that worships money more than anything else.....some things are more valuable than money
capnmike @ 15:
I get the feeling you haven't had to deal with an ins adjuster very much.......good luck
Misc @ 2:
Why do you think insurance companies pay lawyers tons of money? Who do you think writes the policies. Equal justice under the law? What a quaint idea.
Jersey @ 8:
Ha... good one. I needed a good laugh.
Damned activist judges...always legislating from the bench.
americahatesearth @ 13:
Iraq is billions of times more important than the United States. It still has resources. The US is spent. We're running out of oil, natural gas, copper, etc...
The people making investments in infrastructure know that their money is wasted in the US.
Equal justice under the law? What a quaint idea.
I think Robert's trying to get that changed on the edifice of the USSC to read
Equal justice for some..The rest of you, get lost!
mudshark @ 72:
They had flood insurance. That's the point of the suit.
The fact that the levees weren't maintained was because God told Bush to cut funding on them. So it is God's fault.
Even as a kid I could tell that the republican party was the party of big business and the democrats were the party for the people.
Jay says: That’s because only kids believe that nonsense.
Adults don't believe in nonsense?!
LBJ and the Great Society was being implemented while I was toddling. Those values were offered to me by my parents who had every reason to believe that there was a magnanimity about America. She takes care of her own. I've spent my adult life watching the unraveling of whatever national virtue we had. It's about all gone, isn't it?
I spent a couple of weeks in Newton, Mass this summer. My relatives live in a subdivision that was created after WWII, housing built for veterans. Imagine a gesture being made like that today? An affordable home because you served...our soldiers are lucky to get healthcare and disability. The system is steered to cutting them off if it can...
...just as the system has cut off Katrina victims in innumerable ways. It's a reasonable argument by the defendants in this particular case that because broken levees do not equal an "act of God" type flood. It's a tragedy within the tragedy that so many thousands rendered homeless in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast have no recourse after the fact. A national shame. Insurance companies and judges simply mirror our callousness to human suffering.
I live in NC where people on the coast can't get flood/hurricane insurance. So the state subsidizes it. The poor peons in the rest of the state--who can't even afford to visit the coast--get to provide insurance for the wealthy.
Welcome to Animal Farm.
The only thing sadder than being told FUCKU by our government are the fools who are one incident away from being fucked.
"Liberals like myself will say: there is a fundamental flaw with this structure. Perhaps insurance companies are not the answer at all. People need to pool their resources and pay into a fund that *is not for profit* but for exactly the kind of unexpected disaster that Katrina was."
That is called a mutual insurance company. Like Mutual of Omaha or Northwestern Mutual. The profits at the end of the year get paid out to policy holders. They have been more successful in life insurance and disability, than in property and casualty, which have more variable payouts. Also, many profesionals service businesses insure themselvves aaginst malpractice through mutual companies. I don't know where you live but you should hunt around for one in yellow pages and through brokers.
People, people. Calm down. Insurance companies aren't around to help you out; they're for making money. Sheesh!
defendants is wrong...mean flood victims
I ran into an insurance adjuster that worked on Katrina some time back. He bragged about how he was earning big bucks screwing over the victims. He used the magic 'N' word.
He could've been a Bill O'Reilly clone. He went on at length about how much wished we'd have another disaster soon, so that thousands of people could die, and he'd earn lots of money. Then he pontificated about Bush is the greatest president that has ever lived.
He talked about Clinton's lies, then I told him that all presidents lie. He said name one lie Bush has told. I gave him a list. He blew his top and I thought I'd be in a fist fight then and there. the bartender intervened...
True Story.
ah...my bad...didn't read it carefully enough...
man, that blows. The city/gov needs to take care of them now..class action?
Flood insurance is a special rider. And, if you choose to live below sea level you might just expect it. [deleted--please make your point civilly.]
What's the point of having an insurance policy if it wont protect people from unforeseeable events? Why do we allow these whorporations to con people out of their money?
Its like paying for indulgences in the middle ages only these policies can (and should) be claimed before the death certificate is written.
I am an insurance agent, and I tell every one of my clients that flood and earthquake are both excluded. I provide them with quotes on both. If they choose not to buy them, and only choose homeowners, they're on their own in the event of either. Earthquake insurance costs a damn fortune, but flood is heavily, heavily subsidized by you and me. I really don't think that the insurance companies should be forced to cover something they specifically and explicity excluded.
I do think that since the government, on a state and federal level, was responsible for maintaining those levees, and failed to do so, that they should step in and either assist with the rebuild, or very, very generously pay for relocation costs.
Ali @ 37:
it's more about conservative government than republicans. if you look at the voting even in the last 6 years, democrats have been complicit with the policies of the bush administration. Louisiana's is a state run by a democrat. NO is a city ran by a democrat. On the Katrina committee the only democrat to sit at the hearings was Cynthia McKinney. This should give you an idea of how democrats felt about Katrina. for them it's great to blame bush, but they've done and are continuing to do absolutely nothing for katrina victims.
PS. i'm pointing the blame on conservative government which is primarily in the republican lead, but also in democratic party as well.
capnmike @ 15:
Maybe that's the fucking problem with a lot of these insurance companies. All their incentives are designed for them to try and avoid paying out what the policy holder expects. You can make your policy so convoluted that a policy purchaser will have to go mentally go through every scenario imaginable PRIOR TO PURCHASING THE POLICY just to see if the damn thing would pay out. The BBB needs to get off its sorry ass and reign in the whole insurance industry. It gets more corrupt by the year.
I'm not saying the ruling is incorrect, because a flood is a natural disaster whether or not levees succeed or fail in mitigating it; however, if this is what happens because people have the false impression that they are covered when they are not, that is an illustration of how grossly ineffective (if not corrupt) our insurance industry is.
Someone please remind me why this industry exists and why we shovel money into it... Cause the basic premise I don't think is really holding up anymore..... In fact the basic premise has seemingly somehow changed over the years within the industry. But noone sent a memo out to the loyal customer base....I can't help but think that was pretty much by design...
Seems like insurance has gone from being a failsafe for people in a real jam needing financial assistance to recover from some calamity, to just another scheme by hi rolling con artists to bilk money out of people then bail when the chips are really down...
IF that's not the case, someone needs to explain just what the hell this latest legal decision means to the folks down in NOLA. I'd really like to know to how that sort of shit gets spun as well....JD
this makes my fucking sick. Where's Micheal Moore when you need him?
@44 Trent Lott's flood insurance policy did pay the max of $250,000. The reconstruction cost of his home was over $400,000, so he's still out an awful lot of money.
Interesting isn't it, all the voices here defending the insurance agencies. The reasoning seems to go : they did't sell all those folks flood insurance, so why should they be responsible for flood damages? It's not in the policy, after all.
Whenever I hear this refrain, I harken beck to a time shortly after 9/11 when every member of the insurance industry had lobbyists before Congress asking for a bailout on the big hit they took that day. A big hit which was an ACT OF MAN and therefore covered. A big hit which they no doubt made up for (and then some) by afterward increasing rates on all the other large buildings they insured. But they didn't let that stop them from begging for taxpayer dollars they felt they were owed to compensate for damages beyond their control. Which as I understand it, is supposed to be the entire rationale for insurance in the first place. Go figure. So it appears that even if damages ARE covered, the industry just gets the public to pay for their "losses". I figure if the taxpayers should be required to bail out the industry post-9/11, then the industry owes the taxpayers some compensation. I for one am willing to let my share of compensation go to the people of New Orleans.
Jonathon @ 6:
Earlier this year we had a bad ice storm. Several of our rental houses had damage due to the storm. Guess what, NOT COVERED. We changed policies shortly after recovered from the expense out of our pocket. We cancelled all of our policies not just the ones that they refused to pay on. In other words - they lost all of our business. I know that our new agent has several new customers after this insident.
I'm wondering WHY DO WE BUY INSURANCE IF WE HAVE TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGE THAT WE THOUGHT WAS COVERED. Ans.- Loan companies require the insurance.
I never recommend the old co. But I do recommend the present co.
Oh, and all of you who are claiming that they had flood insurance are wrong. Flood insurance is sold strictly through the Federal Flood Insurance Program. No private insurer offers it in any form, and all private insurers specifically exclude it. These folks were attempting to sue their private insurance companies to force them to cover a specifically excluded peril.
It seem that our system has given more power to the INSURANCE industries than the power of GOD.
At the end the POWER of GOD will miracleously overshadow the INSURANCE POWER through through the meek and the helpless. For they have NONE to lose but much to gain through the POWER of our ALMIGHTY GOD.
KARMA.....................PEOPLE will RISE above all EVIL.
Yeah, we read the article. They didn't have flood insurance. Here's the ruling:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/07/07-30119-CV0.wpd.pdf
On page three:
On page six you'll find the very clear language from the contracts that excludes flood damage.
D. Tree @ 62:
Excellent comment...to pile on a little, the government even manages to crackdown on groups who try to do exactly what you're recommending. Christian MediShare is unable to allow participation in my state and others because the government doesn't like it???? I'm guessing. I really don't know why.
For those saying that these people should have read the contract, have you read yours? I read mine long before this, and I literally have no clue if I would be covered if a thunderstorm damaged my house. Changing insurance is a nightmare as underwriting in homeowner's has become almost as ugly as medical. One company rejected my German Shepherd, the other was fine with the Shepherd and rejected the Chow-mix, another didn't like the backyard play set. The one I did get to write the policy includes all kinds of ambiguous statements that obviously provide it an escape route on one of the most likely loss scenarios.
I don't have a legal degree and don't have time or money to spend verifying my coverage will work when I need it. If they say they're insuring my house, it should be insured. End of discussion.
Gitai @ 99:
Yep - AFTER Trent employed his brother-in-law Dickie Scruggs, trial lawyer extraordinaire, to sue the living shit out of the company. Before that they weren't going to pay.
Lots posts from pro-corporate trolls (or is it anti-New Orleans vics) who live in protective, damage-free bubbles so their beloved insurance companies never hafta pay out a cent.
The point is these thieves, I mean, BUSINESSES can change the deal anytime they want to and be backed up by the American Just-us system. Whadda racket! Their bedmates, the banks, require insurance so economic blackmail and usury complete the circle of this jerk.
Republican answer to Katrina: Who cares? They are liberals, black and poor.
Houngan @ 3:
Exactly.
I live out here in earthquake territory, and I know people who will not buy Earthquake Insurance on their homes - they tell me that they don't because they figure that the government will bail them out if a big one happens. This really ticks me off.
Insurance companies typically do not insure you from ALL risk.
ok so tell me again what is the point of having insurance? Why are we paying X dollars every month to get the shaft when it comes time to collect.
Insurance Companies = the Great American Scam
capnmike @ 16:
Uh, dude, nice show of compassion there. Nice...
This is really sad. I had a neighbor who was a Katrina victim who was screwed the same way most were - and this woman was actually a retired "well off" little old lady in her 60's or 70's. She lived alone and had a huge house right on the lake (can't remember the name right now) in New Orleans where the levees were nearby. She was denied coverage by FEMA *and* her insurance carrier, even though she was covered for everything under the sun. She was told that her only option was the sell her home to a developer, who low-balled her for $40,000. She had to move to California to live with her daughter and depend on that money for everything else. Her home alone was worth half a million, easily. But she was told that she would have to wait at least 10 years before her home could be slated for repair. Her home was still "standing" but needed major roof and water damage-related repair. And this woman was a former Bush voter. I tried talking to her several times about what was going on, how Bush screwed her, etc, but she usually ended up crying and felt terrible for her.
Anyway, I have since moved and haven't been in touch with her. I can only imagine how this news must've hit that poor woman.
Jay @ 43:
Uh, yes, and adults who moan about the children's alleged misconceptions, eh?
Rusty Shackleford @ 106:
Isn't it funny how when anyone ELSE uses a lawyer to sue a company, your average Republic Politician cries the Republic will fail unless this abomination against GAWD is outlawed....
But, notice when THEY need a lawyer, they can afford the best and they do...
Remember, Tom Delay was ramming through legislation to stop malpractice cases AT THE SAME TIME his family was suing and collecting a big settlement against their fathers doctors...
All Animals Are Equal, but Some are MORE Equal then Others....
Fuck these cretin pigs who have no honor and no soul.May they all burn in the same ring of Hell that Dante put the criminal Popes.
Weaseldog @ 84:
Thanks for the correction...sometimes it gets a little confusing with all the bs.......so they have flood Ins......wtf...corruption more corruption..as for gawd....well someone said the invisible sky wizard.....that works for me......meanwhile American citizens are getting fucked again by this admin......
"God forbid the insurance agencies have to pay out for these people with devastating losses."
Have you still not been paying attention. Business must be protected from these catastrophic losses. Otherwise, American business cannot compete, if they can't compete, it will hurt the economy, if the economy is hurt, then America's place in the global marketplace is in jeopardy, the stock market will fall, the dollar will collapse...and then...wait for it....WAAAAAIT FOR IT....THE TERRORISTS WIN!!!
Besides, no one MADE those people live by the levees. (snarky "conservative" personal responsibility bullshit line thrown in for effect).
I am heart broken.
My home and work are gone- my friends spread throughout the hemisphere.
I miss my home- the greatest collection of musicians and artists in this country.
People keep asking me if/when I'm going back....
I don't even want to live in this country anymore let alone move back to the scene of the crime.
Eat the Rich.
capnmike @ 16:
Spoken like a true social parasite.
I haven't read the thread so this may be redundant.
So, the insurance companies are claiming they are not responsible for the damage because it was caused by flooding (water) and not wind? Hello! Storm Surge! The wind caused the water to do what it did (forget the levees...no surge, no problem). Wind causes trees to fall over on stuff. They pay for that. They should pay for this! God Damn it I hate the insurance, pharmaceutical, and petro companies! Corporate "think" will be the death of us.
E in MD @ 74:
Read the article more carefully E in MD. The plaintiffs were arguing that the exclusion of water damage in their homeowner's policy was ambiguous as to whether flooding by man was excluded. If the suit was about an actual flood insurance policy, the federal gov't would automatically be involved bc flood insurance is provided through a federal program.
Yes, insurance companies screw people over and should be fixed. But forcing them to pay out on bullshit claims is not the way to fix things. It just screws over those of us on the Gulf Coast that have insurance.
Jim @ 30:
Jim,
Did NOLA drown because of a natural disaster (flooding) or due to defective levees? (negligence) -- I believe that is the argument.
If the flooding was an act of man(if thats the arguement)that would be a criminal offense and there for the Govt should be responsible for fixing it and helping the residents out.If the flooding was caused by high water levels that forced the levee's to fail....what caused the water to rise?Those that had flood ins should be covered and those that didn't should get help from the govt.....but nothing is happening....same old shit coming out of the ins backed boosh admin...so When Trent Lott sue's his ins company and wins but these other folks lose....you can polish a turd all day but at the end of the day all you have is a shiney turd.
Although insurance companies are everybody's favorite whipping boy, they are dead right to deny claims that aren't covered. It's simple.
People pay premiums based on the amount of risk they transfer to the insurance company - the more risk they transfer, the higher the premium.
If Insurers included flood coverage (which is generally excluded from ALL personal insurance policies) they would have to charge MUCH more for insurance; AND, those people who didn't live in flood-prone areas would have to pay more premium so that those who DID live in those areas could have coverage.
Alternatively, if a single insurance company came up with a "consumer-friendly" policy that INCLUDED flood coverage, no one who was not exposed to that particular risk would buy the policy, because the premium would be so high. Thus, the Insurer's ONLY Clients would be those most exposed to this type of loss - and the Insurer would be out of business before the first flood waters receded...
It's hard to know where to start.
Flood has always been excluded by Homeowner's policies. The reason is that not all people live where a flood can happen. If you want to have floods covered it's easy. Make your state government require it. But that will never happen because the people that don't live where it can flood will never vote for a person that wants to require the coverage. Companies would sell flood coverage if they could sell it, but the only people that will buy from that company will be people that live in areas where floods occur. So a separate flood policy is available just like separate auto, boat, life, and health policies.
The "not for profit" insurance company idea has happened for over a hundred years. It's called a mutual company. All of the policyholders own the company, and there are no stock holders. Some of the defendants in the lawsuit are mutual companies (State Farm is owned by it's policy holder "members").
Depending on the policy type certain things are covered by it. It's written down. Paying for things that are not covered would result in higher premiums for the company that does it. Would you stay with a company that sends your renewal with a note that says "Your premium is $200 more than anyone else's, but we pay for losses that are not covered". You'd be down at the agent's office changing insurers in a minute to save that $200.
So who should pay? Well the negligent party should. If it was covered the insurance companies could turn around and recover because of the negligent acts of the corps of engineers. But they can't because it is not covered. The federal government should pay, and the anger should be directed at them. Of course the feds don't have any money to do that since they would have to call off the war for three days, or we could have a surcharge on our taxes to pay the claims (it would go directly into a "lock box" for that purpose).
Insurance companies (especially mutuals) are a socialist idea. Many pool risk for certain types of losses to one, but everyone that participates has the same benefits. You do not want to be in a pool with people that do dangerous things, they can form their own pool. Insurers do have to submit the the free market in pricing their policies so they can compete. If insurers paid excluded losses the socialist system that works very well in most cases would cease to work at all no matter how sad the situation.
The Federal Government was negligent and they should pay, and we are the federal taxpayers.
Wow, it's amazing how many people (original poster included) don't understand how insurance works. Would you expect your auto insurance to pay for damage to your home? Of course not -- but that's the equivalent of expecting homeowner's insurance to pay for flood damage that is specifically excluded from the policy (which is almost always the case).
The insurance companies were wrong in another example where they tried to keep from paying for clear wind damage (such as blown-off roofs), which WAS covered by the policies in question. However, they were completely right in this case to fight against paying for something that wasn't covered.
Let's have a little common sense, people. The reason for the flooding is irrelevant. It was still flooding, which wasn't covered.
Fucking morons.
Those homes were destroyed by a H-U-R-R-I-C-A-N-E. The surge of water from the HURRICANE destroyed those homes. Again we abandon our OWN FELLOW CITIZENS because of a fucking technicality. A STORM SURGE from the ocean is not a flood. And if the insurance companies are not liable, why did ALL insurance companies raise their premiums in the wake of Katrina?
If these people were a major corporation, the gov would give them a huge welfare bailout.
That's because corporate welfare is good.
It would come as a loan that the government would later forgive when no one is looking.
Hmm, so insurance dude,
What's the point of having an "insurance" policy then???
Jonathon @ 6:
Well said. The only thing I could add to what you said is that it's damned disgraceful.
Che's Lounge:
Flood (or "rising waters) is excluded no matter what causes it except for broken pipes within the home. So storm surge, hurricane, whatever is not covered. Rain coming through an open window is covered because it has not "rising waters".
Harry Scrope:
When your house burns down, Godzilla steps on it, your pipes burst, your sued for knocking over an old lady and breaking her hip, or your ex decides to steal everything in your place you will know what your insurance policy is for. It's for a lot of things, but flood is not one of them.
Excuse me on my last post: Hurricane winds are covered but rising waters due to those winds are not.
jim @ 30
You are correct.
Insurance policies are sneaky.
You have to fight claims in court and the policies are written
to suit.
You can be paying premiums for years and if a disaster strikes , only then,
do you find out you were duped.
Have the readers actually read their home insurance policies
and then asked ther insurance company for clarification
on the real meaning of particualr items?
You should . You may end up annoyed or confused.
The best insurance is to have a house on high ground , not in huricane or tornado zones ,
and not in earthquake , mud slide or forest/brush fire areas
This week, I feel Americans are on the losing end of everything. The Dems are selling us down the road, what with feinstein, and the gang that seems bent on appeasing Bush on his FISA demands. And more. After all this, I am wondering why I bother calling these clowns and making my voice heard. It doesn't seem to matter.....
Ginger,
Yes I've heard this bullshit from the corporate apologists like you over and over again. I hope you sleep well. These capitalists (and apologists like you) are the root cause of the downfall of this country.
I have more respect for the work of Hezbollah than these racketeers. Do you even realize what you are saying? And please don't recite to me any BS about "I'm just telling you what the rules are, I'm not condoning the decision". It's insulting and totally lacking in common sense and national pride to even type that statement.
Don't quote me technicalities. We help our own no matter what, even if it costs us 1 fucking TRILLION dollars. THAT is what makes us better than the scum who decided this.
Money rationalizes everything.
There was a time when insurance was sold in order to spread the risk around. Now its still sold that way, but it is designed to reduce risk to the insurance corporation, while pretending to provide a safety net to the customer.
Compared to my grandfather's day, the quality of insurance coverage that is available has significantly declined.
But in his day, all forms of insurance were mostly optional. Corporations felt they needed to compete.
Since then, more and more policy types have become mandatory because the insurance lobbies have pushed hard for this legislation. Further, the insurance carriers have lobbied to allow less and less coverage for higher and higher payments.
The insurance carriers have more votes than we do, because they take our money and shove it into the britches of their politicians, who then bend over and provide all the legislative services that the insurance carriers can think of.
The suggestions to read your policy and shop around are hilarious, considering its rigged and dishonest game.
Homeowners insurance doesn't cover floods. Every insurance salesman in New Orleans for the last fifty years repeats this in their sleep. Everyone knows this. If you want flood coverage, you buy flood insurance.
Life's a bitch, but its not State Farm's fault.
Seriously, I rented a storage locker in New Orleans, and they told me at least five times that flood damage was not covered. They even made me sign a statement saying that I had been told this. This was well before Katrina.
Old Billy @ 137:
Once again, I thought this was about homeowners with flood insurance? That the debate is whether the breaching of the levees was an act of god or not?
Duval said the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God - such as excessive rainfall - and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina’s landfall.
So they had flood insurance.
I work for an insurance company. It is painfully obvious here that most of you fools don't have a clue what you're talking about. Those that expect the insurance companies to pay "no matter what" are friggin' pathetic. It's you bleading heart liberals, who live in a fantasy land, that give the rest of us intelligent and realistic liberals a bad name; and it's people like you that help conservatives because you weaken your our side so much.
Now, I'll admit insurance is a very shady industry in many ways and these large corporations I've worked for care only about the bottom line... But, that does not mean that because they are typical capitalists that they're obligated to pay for other people's problems when they are in no way legally obligated to. I know this won't go over well with you simple minded morons, but insurance is a very complicated industry. There are thousands of different types of policies. You don't just go buy one policy to cover yourself for everything that could go wrong in your life - what kind of company do you think would ever sell you one of those? You buy different policies to cover different risks. These people did not have flood insurance, so therefore their insurance policy, which was not designed for flood, is not obligated to pay them.
I tell you, some of you fools are so easily manipulated - tell you a sad story and that a Bush judge ruled a certain way and you'll abandon all logic just to go against anything that's associated with Bush or a conservative idea.
americahatesearth @ 122:
Yes, the plaintiffs are arguing that the fact that the man-made levees failed to protect them from a flood means that the flood was not a natural disaster, but a man-made one.
My problem with this argument is that you can't lose it.
A category five hurricane comes through and wipes out the levee, which everyone knows was built to withstand a cat 3 storm? Well, that's a man-made disaster due to the negligence of the government in having built a cat 3 levee system to begin with!
Rain causes flooding? Well, that's man-made due to the failure to build a sufficient pumping and drainage system!
A river overflows its banks due to record rainfall and snowmelt? Man-made!! Someone should have built a levee there! A big enough levee, natually.
And again, this is what flood insurance is for. Flood insurance covers flood damage with no parsing of whether it's man-made or negligence or just fallible human people failing to stop a natural disaster, despite their collective best efforts. Read the decision (I linked to it above,) read the insurance policies referenced in the decision. They don't cover flood damage on your home any more than your life insurance or car policy does.
Che's Lounge @ 127:
Hey, peter pan, wake up and join the adults. The insurance companies paid out billions as it is. There was so much damage that was not just caused by flood (fire, wind, looting, theft, loss of business income, etc..) that they did pay. Plus they paid a lot of flood claims inland from some people who actually did have flood coverage on their policies. Not to mention they will have tens of thousands of people who will try to put in liability claims for anything and everything under the sun. The argument here is that some people think they should pay billions more, or basically just pay for anything bad that happened to anybody in the gulf coast because, after all, why not show some compassion. You people really have no clue. You think the money comes from nowhere. No, it comes from somewhere. You can't give people billions of dollars without taking billions from somewhere else. And, there have been many insurance companies that have gone under and/or taken huge financial hits and had to sell off parts of their company from catastrophes such as this and 9/11.
I remember Trent Lott being interviewed on TV about 6 months after the hurricane. Just before the interview ended he made a threat to HIS insurance company because, I believe, they denied part of his claim for damages. Seems his house was destroyed during the storm and he was having troubles with his claim. That was the last I ever heard about his claim.
Some questions I would love to have answered are...
1) Did Lott's insurance company change their mind and rebuild his place ?
2) Was Lott's house located in the flood zone/levy area ?
We need a good sleuth to get the answers.
Chachi - could you be an employee or on the board of one of the insurance companies that is trying so hard to NOT pay?
Read a bit and you will find even those with wind and flood coverage are having a hell of a time getting paid. If I pay premiums for years and years, yes I expect coverage.
And as for where is the money coming, Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas have had HUGE increases in home insurance, we have been with Farmers for years and our home premium went higher than our auto for 4 vehicles, with a high deductible. So figure out where the money is coming, from everyone. What about all the years without any damage pay out? Check out who owns some of the biggest buildings in your city. That is where the premiums went and now it is payout time and the insurance companies are crying foul.
Sure seems fair to me, strike another hit for big business.
Texas Lady, you made my point. The money comes from everyone. The money is coming from you, and me and everyone. I have no problem with people who expect coverage when they have a legitimate claim. My problem is with the many people on this message board who've been basically saying that the insurance companies should pay just because people in NOLA sufferred and that's what insurance is for, and that the decision should be made out of compassion rather than based on what a legal contract states. These people don't realize that if insurance companies shell out an extra few billion dollars on top of what they've already shelled out then we all will pay for it. You will pay even more for your policies as will all of us. I'm not on any corporate board; I'm an underwriter and I know how the industry works. I also know the industry is corrupt to a point, but that is a separate issue from this debate on those in NOLA who are looking for reimbursement for flood damage when they did not have flood insurance.
Jimmy @ 144:
I believe Lotts house was in Mississippi on the beach.....storm surge zone.......
Chachi @ 143:
Hey chachi....I do believe his point is that the real foundation...the bottom line ...is that the flood was caused by a hurricane...no hurricane,no flood and we wouldn't be having this discussion...anything else is juggling the facts.
but to be honest...when I had hardwood floors in my house.If I busted a pipe and the floor was ruined because of water it was considered flooded(even when my house was up on a sand dune)And if I didn't have flood ins....I was screwed.fortunatly I never had a problem.
Oh and Chachi....why do ins premiums go up across the board when there hasn't been a disaster.It seems to me that people that own properties in a repeated danger zone and suffer repeated assaults by nature ie:Hurricanes,mudslides,beach erosion,tornados,avalanche.etc...should have to pay a higher premium for being willing to stay in that zone.I own a house in a hurricane zone...last year my premium doubled actually it more than doubled....there will come a time when it will cost to much...but thats my problem not someone in a safe zone...
Comments are closed on this entry