[Rhodes22-list] Coastal Living - Insurance

[Herb Parsons]

John, it's just NOT THAT EASY. It's very easy to say, but not so easy to do.

The insurance companies provided home owner insurance, but not against 
floods. They did provide insurance coverage against storms, but not 
floods. Homeowners bought the private insurance, but (in some cases) not 
flood insurance.

So, a storm comes in and the surge fills a lake.
The levee's that hold back the lake fail because of the design of the 
federal government agency that designed it, and because the local 
governmental agency (the levee board) did not properly maintain it.
And now the homeowners that did not purchase flood insurance want to say 
it's storm damage.

Is it? If you're the homeowners, you want to say of course. If you're 
the business owner, you want to say of course not. That's where the 
courts come in.

Personally, I think the homeowners screwed up, and it's always easier to 
say "Just make the guys with the deep pockets pay me", but then I'm not 
the judge in the case.

Regardless, it's not all quite as cut and dry as you're trying to make 
it out to be.

john Belanger wrote:
> settle all accounts. thats all. 
>   i would still be attracted to a place on the shore where i could listen to the waves. thats the chance you take. part of the excitement. 
>
> Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>   Sorry, I missed that implication (though I don't see how anyone would 
> have got that). I'm not sure what you mean "require before they leave". 
> What does "leaving" have to do with anything. Yes, they should be 
> required to pay. They should be allowed to "leave" regardless, of 
> whether they stay or go.
>
> I don't know of any court challenges where insurance companies are 
> asking to be relieved of their obligations; however, I know of MANY 
> where insurance companies are saying they weren't covering what is being 
> claimed. That's normal.
>
> Maybe there are cases I'm not aware of, but I agree with your basic 
> concept, but I'm still confused by what you mean "leaving". A company 
> should be allowed to shut down business, and cease operation in that 
> city/state/whatever. However, if the company still exists, "leaving" 
> that area does not, and should not, relieve them of responsibility.
>
> Most of the claims I'm familiar with in the Katrian stricken areas have 
> to do with weather or not the floods were "rising water" damages (which 
> are typically not covered by regular home-owners insurance) or storm 
> caused. I see valid arguments both ways,and unfortunately, that's 
> something the courts WILL have to decide. The toehr big claims are for 
> incidental damages, which are, for the most part, scams by the lawyers.
>
> john Belanger wrote:
>   
>> i was implying that the company was refusing to pay on claims before they left. if they don't want to offer future policies in a state, that their right. the state should not impede their business. but the government should require that the claims be paid before the company leaves. if that's the law. it should not be susceptible to court challenges, delays, etc. 
>>
>> Herb Parsons wrote: Actually John, you said a LOT more than that. The "'tole ya!" was based 
>> more on this:
>>
>> "i fault the state and federal governments in allowing them to leave a 
>> state (especially after a large insurance loss)."
>>
>> Any company that experiences a "loss" in a given area should be able to 
>> choose to leave that area, if they want. The feds should not dictate to 
>> states how they run their state. They certainly should not be forcing 
>> private business to over services at a loss. Guess who gets to make up 
>> the difference in that loss?
>>
>>
>>
>> john Belanger wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> herb,
>>> i said the feds action should be to remove caps so that those who can pay what is required would still be able to get coverage. if the rate is too high for some folks, then the pool shrinks. equalibrium returns. the companies send their sales staffs into areas of risk, determine what the risk is worth, and sell you a policy. if what is covered occurs, then you should get what you paid for. insurance. whats wrong with requiring a company to honor its commitments? and there are lots of people who are smart enough not to own land on the edge of the water, but who vacation every year at the edge of the water. 
>>>
>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
>>> Brad - Tole ya!
>>>
>>> john Belanger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> insurance companies are in the business of making money. they hedge their bets like any good bookie would. the one thing to remember about them is that they are also known by their other important title: institutional investor. i fault the state and federal governments in allowing them to leave a state (especially after a large insurance loss). they are national companies, and should be allowed and required as such to offer coverage nationally. take off any cap on fees for catastrophic event coverage. if people are willing to pay, insurance companies should be allowed to charge whatever the traffic will bear. in return, everyone should be covered for minimal coverage. 
>>>>
>>>> Brad Haslett wrote:
>>>> This was predictable. The Sun-Herald (Biloxi-Gulfport) had an article today
>>>> about State Farm insurance and the fact they aren't writing any more
>>>> homeowners policies in Florida. Nationwide and Allstate came to the same
>>>> conclusion earlier (boat insurance is sure to follow). Now I understand it
>>>> is hard to love an insurance company, but this is a perfect example of what
>>>> happens when 'da gubment' sticks its nose in private business, you don't get
>>>> cheaper prices, you get fewer services. Both Mississippi and Florida (and
>>>> other states) have gone after insurers through their state insurance
>>>> commissions and Attorney Generals, and the net result has been for the
>>>> insurance companies to pick-up their bat, and ball, and glove, and go
>>>> somewhere else to play. Those of us who live inland pay as well - my
>>>> earthquake coverage was canceled due to Katrina, huh? It sounds silly but
>>>> that's the way it works. The 2004/05 hurricane season gave the big boys
>>>> bloody noses so they reduce their risk somewhere else to limit their
>>>> exposure. Now here is the next thing that's predictable as hell, politicians
>>>> will line-up during an election season and spout how they're going to
>>>> protect you from those "greedy" insurance companies. BS. This is reality
>>>> and the only thing you can do to remedy the situation is to take on more
>>>> risk yourself, or move. If you love FEMA, you'll really love universal
>>>> health care.
>>>>
>>>> Brad
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Herb Parsons
S/V O'Jure - O'Day 25
S/V Reve de Pappa - Coronado 35