Katrina victims lost case

[smartorl]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Why should a private company have to assume the risk of insuring your home if it's built in a dangerous area??? Why should I have to pay higher premiums to help cover the losses of people who choose to live in more dangerous areas?
The government does not make you have Homeowner's Insurance.
Now, I'm not sure how your State does things, but most States cooperate with the Federal Flood Insurance Program. You certainly should be able to get it. Again, though, States individually have a lot of say in it.
Ok, I understand but if a company is not willing to assume the risk, then they should not be able to reap the benefits of selling other types of insurance within an area. What about all the years that the insurance companies sat back and raked in money on hurricane policies that there were no hurricanes? It just so happened that after years of near misses and quiet seasons that we all got pounded. People overlook all the years of quiet and no dangerous or destructive storms. Is it fair for the insurance companies to rake it in when the going is good and simply walk away the first time they have to reach deep into their pockets?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Your welcome! But there were also documented tornados that came as a result of the hurricane. But however you try to spin this ... this is tragic and something needs to be done to help those people. As I said before we will send aid all over the world, but we refuse to provide adequate aid to our own people. Second if the flood occured because of the faulty levies- the government is liable.... is there any difference b/w this and the bridge in Minn? Both were structually flawed and people died and loss property as a result. Will their auto insurance say they were at fault becaue technically they did not hit anything?
You're spinning...
Floods are not covered... The end. If a Hurricane causes it then it's not covered. If sewage backs up from the street and comes into your home it's not covered. If Godzilla wades ashore and causes a Tsunami it's not covered.
The homeowner's that can prove their homes were damaged by tornados only are covered... Now, trying to argue that your home was hit by a tornado (provided they had wind coverage, which many did not) when your city was wiped out by a flood is a bit difficult....
If you want to argue the Government is liable go right ahead.. just don't blame the Insurance Companies for that.
Your comparison with the Auto Insurance is missing a key ingredient (and thus my comment that you are spinning); Auto policies don't come with "exclusions" stating that your car isn't covered if a bridge collapses.
We can argue the response of the Federal Government on another thread, but imho people need to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. If you live in a city, surrounded by water on three sides, on the coast of a Hurricane zone, and your home is below sea level, and you don't have Flood Insurance...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by smartorl
Ok, I understand but if a company is not willing to assume the risk, then they should not be able to reap the benefits of selling other types of insurance within an area. What about all the years that the insurance companies sat back and raked in money on hurricane policies that there were no hurricanes? It just so happened that after years of near misses and quiet seasons that we all got pounded. People overlook all the years of quiet and no dangerous or destructive storms. Is it fair for the insurance companies to rake it in when the going is good and simply walk away the first time they have to reach deep into their pockets?
So would you rather the companies completely withdraw from your State so you can't get auto Insurance?
Homeowner policies do not equal Hurricane policies. i'm not sure what a Hurricane policy is so I can't comment. I don't think we have those in Texas.
Fair? It's business. Is it fair that I pay for years and never have a claim? Yes! Because I'm paying for specific coverages in case of a loss. If my house is a 200,000 home, and I pay 1500 a year for Insurance, how many years do I have to pay before the company breaks even on my home if it burns down?
Again I'll point out that Insurance is a service provided by for profit companies (many of which are publically traded). If you feel Insurance is such a bad deal, don't get it.
Just don't say a private company shouldn't be allowed to decide what risks they want to take...

 

[shogun323]

Originally Posted by smartorl
Ok, I understand but if a company is not willing to assume the risk, then they should not be able to reap the benefits of selling other types of insurance within an area. What about all the years that the insurance companies sat back and raked in money on hurricane policies that there were no hurricanes? It just so happened that after years of near misses and quiet seasons that we all got pounded. People overlook all the years of quiet and no dangerous or destructive storms. Is it fair for the insurance companies to rake it in when the going is good and simply walk away the first time they have to reach deep into their pockets?
As I previously mentioned All the profits of previous and quiet years were wiped out with Katrina. 25 years of Prmiums, not profits were lost from that storm. It is a common misconception that insurance carriers are just raking in the dough and not wanting to pay. Rates are determined by reinsurance and are filed with the State for admitted carriers.

 

[reefraff]

The majority of legitimate disputes with insurance companies is about flood water damage vs. driven rain damage. If your house is damaged by rising water that is a flood and not covered. If the wind blows your windows out or your roof off and the rain water causes the damage you are covered.
If someone lives inland where flooding is rare and they get hit without flood insurance I could see having the government help. When someone lives on a coast known for Hurricanes AND lives below sea level and they don't have flood insurance? Sorry, you lose. Gross stupidity on your part shouldn't constitute a financial burden on mine.

 

[shogun323]

Originally Posted by reefraff
The majority of legitimate disputes with insurance companies is about flood water damage vs. driven rain damage. If your house is damaged by rising water that is a flood and not covered. If the wind blows your windows out or your roof off and the rain water causes the damage you are covered.
If someone lives inland where flooding is rare and they get hit without flood insurance I could see having the government help. When someone lives on a coast known for Hurricanes AND lives below sea level and they don't have flood insurance? Sorry, you lose. Gross stupidity on your part shouldn't constitute a financial burden on mine.
Very well said.