StreetScooby 5 #1 September 12, 2005 This is from today's Financial Times: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f3301e74-22ff-11da-86cc-00000e2511c8.html Insurers are going to claim damage came from flood, not storm. Thus, many homeowners will not have insurance help in rebuilding their homes. Also, those with flood insurance are probably limited to 200K, less than the cost of their homes. “The [physical] nightmare of the emergency is hopefully over for many people but the financial nightmare is just about to begin,” said E.L. “Bubba” Henry, alawyer representing insurance companies.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bendywendy 0 #2 September 12, 2005 In Florida if you live near a canal that might overflow its' banks you have to have flood insurance - who lets you build your home below sea level with a couple of levies the only thing between you and whole bunch of water and not have flood insurance? Oh wait, maybe that would be the same place that says time to evacuate but doesn't bother to make sure that most of it's inhabitants who don't even own vehicles have any way of actually evacuating. The whole thing is just sick! It's too bad that the media is wasting everyone's time trying to make sure someone takes the blame for it rather than push, push, push and keep the focus on helping everyone. I can't watch it anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 September 12, 2005 Quote I can't watch it anymore. Best idea I've heard all day. I'm a compassionate person (unless you're breaking into my house), but these folks are in for a prolonged nightmare. They're not from New Orleans any more.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #4 September 12, 2005 The bulk of the damage in New Orleans did come from flooding and not the storm. Its a sad situation, but they should have had flood insurance. Also, keep in mind that if and when they are ready to rebuild, low interest government insured loans will be available to most of the residents and business owners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #5 September 12, 2005 They'll still owe their old mortgages. Plus, the soil is now rehydrated, which may cause foundations to crack.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #6 September 12, 2005 I agree that it sucks for them. However, it is flood damage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 September 12, 2005 QuoteThey'll still owe their old mortgages. Which is actually a nightmare for the banks just as much as it is for the insureds. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #8 September 12, 2005 Quote They're not from New Orleans any more. No their from Houston Texas now "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slappie 9 #9 September 12, 2005 QuoteI agree that it sucks for them. However, it is flood damage. I seriously wonder why buildings in the downtown area that were flooded seem to be spontaniously catching fire and being gutted by that fire... Hmm no flood insurance? Claim the flood isn't what destroyed your house or buisness. It was FIRE instead. Instantly insured. "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #10 September 12, 2005 Yes, I have heard that in general terms it's much easier to start a fire than a flood ;)We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #11 September 12, 2005 QuoteI agree that it sucks for them. However, it is flood damage. But the flood was a result of the hurricane...no hurricane, no flood (at least in this case) it will be interesting to see how this will play out in court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HydroGuy 0 #12 September 12, 2005 Quote I seriously wonder why buildings in the downtown area that were flooded seem to be spontaniously catching fire and being gutted by that fire... Hmm no flood insurance? Claim the flood isn't what destroyed your house or buisness. It was FIRE instead. Instantly insured.YepGet in - Get off - Get away....repeat as neccessary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #13 September 12, 2005 QuoteBut the flood was a result of the hurricane...no hurricane, no flood (at least in this case) I have it from an inside source in the insurance biz that 'hurricane insurance' usually covers floods caused by hurricanes. What I'm wondering though, is if insurance companies would even offer that option to residents of NO - being below sea-level and all. The aritcle even states "Flood coverage was offered under a scheme backed by the Federal Flood Insurance Program" So, I'd say the insurance companies don't have to pay for it. If I live next to a river and it rains enough for the river to overflow its banks, can I claim the rain damaged my house and not the flood waters? No - if I didn't have flood insurance, I'm probably screwed.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tigra 0 #14 September 12, 2005 Actually, the flood was the result of failed levees, no? Levees which might not have failed if they'd been reinforced years ago? It WILL be interesting to see how it plays out in court. Never the less, as someone else pointed out, flood insurance should have been a requirement anyway. Then the insurance companies could fight it out with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #15 September 12, 2005 QuoteI have it from an inside source in the insurance biz You associate with such people? Yuk...Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #16 September 12, 2005 QuoteYes, I have heard that in general terms it's much easier to start a fire than a flood ;) An actuary told me that an Underwriting VP once said that the best form of Earthquake insurance is a gas can on your water heater. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #17 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteI have it from an inside source in the insurance biz You associate with such people? Yuk... I didn't say they were all that exciting... they're all the time spouting off random statistics, something about distribution methods, net premium-something, and filings. They are useful to have around sometimes though. And they're good in bed.it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #18 September 12, 2005 You're talking about Phil, right? Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wildblue 7 #19 September 12, 2005 QuoteYou're talking about Phil, right? Well, I can't speak from first hand experience... but form the stories I hear.... it's like incest - you're substituting convenience for quality Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brains 2 #20 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteI have it from an inside source in the insurance biz You associate with such people? Yuk... Hey, don't attack him, we don't say those things about Karen for hanging out with a frenchcanadiannnnneee Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Elisha 1 #21 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteI have it from an inside source in the insurance biz You associate with such people? Yuk... I didn't say they were all that exciting... they're all the time spouting off random statistics, something about distribution methods, net premium-something, and filings. They are useful to have around sometimes though. And they're good in bed. I think those are called....actuaries. They have usually have math backgrounds. I did actuarial work at one point and so did another skydiver, who used to jump at Byron and I heard is getting married soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
f1freak 0 #22 September 12, 2005 QuoteWhich is actually a nightmare for the banks just as much as it is for the insureds. It's amazing that Banks wouldnt make their NO customers carry flood insurance.HAVE FUN... ...JUST DONT DIE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #23 September 12, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhich is actually a nightmare for the banks just as much as it is for the insureds. It's amazing that Banks wouldnt make their NO customers carry flood insurance. Exactly! It's just as much the banks' investments. THEY will be the big losers, and likely the big-money plaintiffs against the insurance companies. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jumprunner 0 #24 September 12, 2005 QuoteActually, the flood was the result of failed levees, no? Levees which might not have failed if they'd been reinforced years ago? It WILL be interesting to see how it plays out in court. Never the less, as someone else pointed out, flood insurance should have been a requirement anyway. Then the insurance companies could fight it out with each other. According to a friend of mine who moved here to California from New Orleans last year, they have 80 billion dollars to send troops to Iraq but they dont have the 20 million as was asked for by the state of LA to maintain the levees. He said they had asked for 20 million for that project but only recieved 2 million from the fed govt. That is why the levees broke and NO flooded...poor maintenence due to lack of funding from the govt. We will definitely be hearing about that in the near future. As usual, the govt is too absorbed in what is going on in foreign countries while they continue to neglect what is going on in this country. "A government for the people, by the people"....what people? The Iraquis? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eeneR 3 #25 September 12, 2005 QuoteAs usual, the govt is too absorbed in what is going on in foreign countries while they continue to neglect what is going on in this country Ding ding ding ding.....how friggen true!!!!!!She is not a "Dumb Blonde" - She is a "Light-Haired Detour Off The Information Superhighway." eeneR TF#72, FB#4130, Incauto Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
