\”Those premium dollars could be better spent in other productive areas. New jobs…higher pay…less lawyers…less lawyers…less lawyers with leftists leanings…less leftists leaning lawyers who become judges…less leftists leaning lawyers who become senators and congressman…less communism and more individualistic capitalism…more accountability…more self-reliance…more self-respect.
$8,000,000.00 that is a lot of money………..\” by MUD
=============================
Sen. Lott Sues State Farm Insurance Co. in Katrina Damage
By HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 15,10:03 PM ET
JACKSON, Miss. – U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) is suing his insurance company over his beachfront Pascagoula home, which was leveled by Hurricane Katrina.
The law office of Lott\’s brother-in-law, high-profile plaintiff\’s Richard \”Dickie\” Scruggs, filed the federal lawsuit Thursday on behalf of Lott and his wife against State Farm.
The case is part of an ongoing wind-versus-water-damage showdown between insurance companies and thousands of storm victims. The issue is whether a wind-driven storm surge is the same as flooding. The companies contend they shouldn\’t have to pay for water damage for those who did not have flood policies.
\”Today I have joined in a lawsuit against my longtime insurance company because it will not honor my policy, nor those of thousands of other south Mississippians, for coverage against wind damage due to Hurricane Katrina,\” said Lott, R-Miss. \”There is no credible argument that there was no wind damage to my home in Pascagoula.\”
State Farm did not immediately respond to messages left by The Associated Press.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour has said he prefers to negotiate with insurance companies, saying lawsuits could force the companies out of Mississippi.
However, Attorney General Jim Hood, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mississippians with standard homeowner\’s policies, says the companies should cover hurricane damage no matter if the loss is from wind damage or a storm surge. Hood says damages could cost billions.
Scruggs, who also lost his Pascagoula home, led the charge in the landmark tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, and has promised to use his clout to get insurance companies to pay up.
Lott said he has exhausted all other options and had no choice but to turn to the courts.
\”My hope is that this litigation will set a precedent for the thousands of other Mississippi homeowners holding policies for coverage against hurricane wind damage that are not being honored by their insurance companies for Katrina,\” he said.
Isn\’t the insurance industry are acting as though they are entitled to all sorts of money from the government just because they had an terrorist attack.
The insurance companies need to prove it was \”one incident or two\”..so what! They need to prove reinsurance was necessary…so what!
That is the real world with insurance for any reinsurance will not typically be reimbursed if it was not necessary!!!
(Where is this required in the Constitution for the government to subsidize any industry?)
====================================
Mr. MUD,
How is the government providing reinsurance to a private industry NOT a form of corporate welfare?
Isn\’t the government providing private companies with reinsurance a for terrorism an example of \”centralized planing\” we might better expect from communist state?
Or Do we all need help from the government from time to time?
Merry Christmas,
Mr. MUD
\”Are there no prisons and work houses and poor houses\”
aka Ebenezer Scrooge ; >)
====================================
House gives final approval on terror insurance
Dec 18, 2005  By Kristin Roberts Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives has given final congressional approval to a bill to extend a set of federal guarantees to cover losses from terrorism, a program viewed by backers as vital to key U.S. industries.
By voice vote, the House on Saturday approved the measure one day after it won passage in the Senate. It now goes to President George W. Bush to sign into law.
After reaching a last-minute compromise that led to Senate passage Friday night, the House approved the legislation to narrow the scope of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and extend it by two years. It had been set to expire on December 31.
\”TRIA has provided a federal backstop protecting policyholders against future catastrophic terrorist attacks,\” said House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, an Ohio Republican.
The measure was first enacted after the September 11, 2001, attacks to keep construction and the economy moving at a time when wary insurers were reluctant to offer coverage.
Under the program, insurers must make terrorism coverage available and in return, the U.S. government guarantees it will bear a large percentage of future losses above certain thresholds.
The property and insurance industries pushed for an extension of TRIA, arguing that nothing has changed since September 11  they still cannot judge the likelihood of attack and therefore cannot price policies.
But the White House and many Republicans had opposed extending TRIA without curbing taxpayers\’ potential liability.
The compromise bill narrows TRIA by removing some insurance lines from the program and raising the size of a terrorist event that triggers federal assistance from $5 million under the current program to $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007. It also boosts insurer deductibles, among other things.
Industry officials said they were pleased Congress had come to an agreement. But some said the deal failed to address long-term issues.
I am not in favor of TRIA. I do not care if it is a business or individual that wants a hand-out. Either cover the events or exclude them, that is their(ins. co\’s.) choice. If no one will pay premium for this, we will survive just like before. Government will only exasberate the issue. Think of Social Security…intended to add to individuals retirement income as a safety net. Because it is now a \’RIGHT\’, very few save for retirement and spend all assets when they come in. Was retirement security repaired? No…people now live on the safety net and constantly want more.
GIVE A MAN A FISH, AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY, TEACH A MAN TO FISH AND FEED HIM FOR A LIFE-TIME.
Remember the story of the ant and grasshopper? One worked hard and saved food for the cold winter, while the other lived for the day. When winter came the grasshopper was begging for food from the ant. Seniors, the so called poor, businesses and others demanding the government solve and provide for all their wants and needs-we are being destroyed as a country and going broke because few will work hard to provide for their own families let alone those who truelly need assistance.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
\”Those premium dollars could be better spent in other productive areas. New jobs…higher pay…less lawyers…less lawyers…less lawyers with leftists leanings…less leftists leaning lawyers who become judges…less leftists leaning lawyers who become senators and congressman…less communism and more individualistic capitalism…more accountability…more self-reliance…more self-respect.
$8,000,000.00 that is a lot of money………..\” by MUD
=============================
Sen. Lott Sues State Farm Insurance Co. in Katrina Damage
By HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 15,10:03 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051216/ap_on_re_us/katrina_lott_lawsuit
JACKSON, Miss. – U.S. Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record) is suing his insurance company over his beachfront Pascagoula home, which was leveled by Hurricane Katrina.
The law office of Lott\’s brother-in-law, high-profile plaintiff\’s Richard \”Dickie\” Scruggs, filed the federal lawsuit Thursday on behalf of Lott and his wife against State Farm.
The case is part of an ongoing wind-versus-water-damage showdown between insurance companies and thousands of storm victims. The issue is whether a wind-driven storm surge is the same as flooding. The companies contend they shouldn\’t have to pay for water damage for those who did not have flood policies.
\”Today I have joined in a lawsuit against my longtime insurance company because it will not honor my policy, nor those of thousands of other south Mississippians, for coverage against wind damage due to Hurricane Katrina,\” said Lott, R-Miss. \”There is no credible argument that there was no wind damage to my home in Pascagoula.\”
State Farm did not immediately respond to messages left by The Associated Press.
Republican Gov. Haley Barbour has said he prefers to negotiate with insurance companies, saying lawsuits could force the companies out of Mississippi.
However, Attorney General Jim Hood, who filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mississippians with standard homeowner\’s policies, says the companies should cover hurricane damage no matter if the loss is from wind damage or a storm surge. Hood says damages could cost billions.
Scruggs, who also lost his Pascagoula home, led the charge in the landmark tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s, and has promised to use his clout to get insurance companies to pay up.
Lott said he has exhausted all other options and had no choice but to turn to the courts.
\”My hope is that this litigation will set a precedent for the thousands of other Mississippi homeowners holding policies for coverage against hurricane wind damage that are not being honored by their insurance companies for Katrina,\” he said.
To paraphrase you\’re statement, Mr. MUD,
Isn\’t the insurance industry are acting as though they are entitled to all sorts of money from the government just because they had an terrorist attack.
The insurance companies need to prove it was \”one incident or two\”..so what! They need to prove reinsurance was necessary…so what!
That is the real world with insurance for any reinsurance will not typically be reimbursed if it was not necessary!!!
(Where is this required in the Constitution for the government to subsidize any industry?)
====================================
Mr. MUD,
How is the government providing reinsurance to a private industry NOT a form of corporate welfare?
Isn\’t the government providing private companies with reinsurance a for terrorism an example of \”centralized planing\” we might better expect from communist state?
Or Do we all need help from the government from time to time?
Merry Christmas,
Mr. MUD
\”Are there no prisons and work houses and poor houses\”
aka Ebenezer Scrooge ; >)
====================================
House gives final approval on terror insurance
Dec 18, 2005  By Kristin Roberts Reuters
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1419047
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives has given final congressional approval to a bill to extend a set of federal guarantees to cover losses from terrorism, a program viewed by backers as vital to key U.S. industries.
By voice vote, the House on Saturday approved the measure one day after it won passage in the Senate. It now goes to President George W. Bush to sign into law.
After reaching a last-minute compromise that led to Senate passage Friday night, the House approved the legislation to narrow the scope of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) and extend it by two years. It had been set to expire on December 31.
\”TRIA has provided a federal backstop protecting policyholders against future catastrophic terrorist attacks,\” said House Financial Services Chairman Michael Oxley, an Ohio Republican.
The measure was first enacted after the September 11, 2001, attacks to keep construction and the economy moving at a time when wary insurers were reluctant to offer coverage.
Under the program, insurers must make terrorism coverage available and in return, the U.S. government guarantees it will bear a large percentage of future losses above certain thresholds.
The property and insurance industries pushed for an extension of TRIA, arguing that nothing has changed since September 11  they still cannot judge the likelihood of attack and therefore cannot price policies.
But the White House and many Republicans had opposed extending TRIA without curbing taxpayers\’ potential liability.
The compromise bill narrows TRIA by removing some insurance lines from the program and raising the size of a terrorist event that triggers federal assistance from $5 million under the current program to $50 million in 2006 and $100 million in 2007. It also boosts insurer deductibles, among other things.
Industry officials said they were pleased Congress had come to an agreement. But some said the deal failed to address long-term issues.
I am not in favor of TRIA. I do not care if it is a business or individual that wants a hand-out. Either cover the events or exclude them, that is their(ins. co\’s.) choice. If no one will pay premium for this, we will survive just like before. Government will only exasberate the issue. Think of Social Security…intended to add to individuals retirement income as a safety net. Because it is now a \’RIGHT\’, very few save for retirement and spend all assets when they come in. Was retirement security repaired? No…people now live on the safety net and constantly want more.
GIVE A MAN A FISH, AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY, TEACH A MAN TO FISH AND FEED HIM FOR A LIFE-TIME.
Remember the story of the ant and grasshopper? One worked hard and saved food for the cold winter, while the other lived for the day. When winter came the grasshopper was begging for food from the ant. Seniors, the so called poor, businesses and others demanding the government solve and provide for all their wants and needs-we are being destroyed as a country and going broke because few will work hard to provide for their own families let alone those who truelly need assistance.