Buddy\’s right. What is the cost to the community of delay in rebuilding the city? Several cities will be no more.
Maybe the first time in a long time that towns are developed into farm land.
Your wrong. Insurance companies sell \”Homeowners\” insurance. The idea that it would not include the major peril affecting homeowners in an area is a farce. Insurers need to go back to a \”Fire\” policy or else figure out a way to cover the peril of flood. Insurers need to face a reality, not the consumers. The AG is correct.
By that logic you should expect a housekeeper (plain old maid) to mow the yard, trim the shrubs, paint, and clean the garage.
That\’s not the normal contract.
Contracts are not what is imagined but what is written. That is the reality.
I\’m not sure which is right. Maybey the policies we have all bought (and sold) in the past are too ambiguous and unfortunately this issue needs the attention of the court system!! Seems to me if the Insurance companies do not want to offer flood coverage they need to state it differently in the contract. Like, \” Flood is totally excluded\”. Fllod is defined as driven water by storms, rising water by any force, ect ect. Of course and except wind driven rain.
I think clarity is what is needed here not silence and assumptions.
Assumptions are what get is into trouble and allow the laeyers to plan on finacial successes into the future. I do not believe the companies should have to pay for something they didnt sell. I do think companies , in an effort to put the right foot forward, need to make some offer thats in the middle of the road such as: Pay the premiums we would have charged you for flood and well pay half the claim less deductibles. While this isnt the best position for the companies i do believe it would prevent the cmpanies from spending so much legal money to defend themselves.
The coastal plans are twice as bad. If you didnt carry flood they are paying wind. In most cases ive found unless you threaten suits or are a friend of the administrators of the plan.
There is a reason that insurance companies offering HO ins do not cover flood. Why? Because flooding is a catastrophic peril in nature which is unattractive to insure due to is correlation. This is the reson for a separate line of insurance called \”Flood Insurance\”. Some private insurers offer this, but b/c of it\’s catastrophic nature, the government is the primary source of this insurance. The division that offers this is called the National Flood Service (NFS) and can be purchased either directly or through another private insurer who sells….that\’s right HO! It is the insureds fault for not seeking out Flood and the agent\’s fault for not evaulating thier risks to inform them that they may need to buy flood insurance.
Interestingly, the article below this one is how people still aren\’t buying NFIP protection. Flooding has been excluded from HO policies for a long time, and if there\’s any blame, it\’s on the local agents for not clearly explaining what the policies cover (although I suspect in most cases they did, and the residents just chose to buy the cheapest coverage).
If forced to pay damages they contractually don\’t owe, the end result will be carriers pulling out of the states, and how does that help anyone going forward?
MY QUESTON IS THIS. WHAT ARE THE CONSUMERS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GOING TO DO IF ONE, OR ALL OF THE MAJOR CARRIERS DECIDE NOT TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE ANY LONGER?
SINCE A LEGAL CONTRACT IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON?
HOW WILL WE REBUILD THE COAST IS NO INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HANDLE THE RISK IN THE FUTURE?
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.
Buddy\’s right. What is the cost to the community of delay in rebuilding the city? Several cities will be no more.
Maybe the first time in a long time that towns are developed into farm land.
Your wrong. Insurance companies sell \”Homeowners\” insurance. The idea that it would not include the major peril affecting homeowners in an area is a farce. Insurers need to go back to a \”Fire\” policy or else figure out a way to cover the peril of flood. Insurers need to face a reality, not the consumers. The AG is correct.
By that logic you should expect a housekeeper (plain old maid) to mow the yard, trim the shrubs, paint, and clean the garage.
That\’s not the normal contract.
Contracts are not what is imagined but what is written. That is the reality.
AG Hood, who is holding out false promises to these poor folks.
I\’m not sure which is right. Maybey the policies we have all bought (and sold) in the past are too ambiguous and unfortunately this issue needs the attention of the court system!! Seems to me if the Insurance companies do not want to offer flood coverage they need to state it differently in the contract. Like, \” Flood is totally excluded\”. Fllod is defined as driven water by storms, rising water by any force, ect ect. Of course and except wind driven rain.
I think clarity is what is needed here not silence and assumptions.
Assumptions are what get is into trouble and allow the laeyers to plan on finacial successes into the future. I do not believe the companies should have to pay for something they didnt sell. I do think companies , in an effort to put the right foot forward, need to make some offer thats in the middle of the road such as: Pay the premiums we would have charged you for flood and well pay half the claim less deductibles. While this isnt the best position for the companies i do believe it would prevent the cmpanies from spending so much legal money to defend themselves.
The coastal plans are twice as bad. If you didnt carry flood they are paying wind. In most cases ive found unless you threaten suits or are a friend of the administrators of the plan.
Dean,
There is a reason that insurance companies offering HO ins do not cover flood. Why? Because flooding is a catastrophic peril in nature which is unattractive to insure due to is correlation. This is the reson for a separate line of insurance called \”Flood Insurance\”. Some private insurers offer this, but b/c of it\’s catastrophic nature, the government is the primary source of this insurance. The division that offers this is called the National Flood Service (NFS) and can be purchased either directly or through another private insurer who sells….that\’s right HO! It is the insureds fault for not seeking out Flood and the agent\’s fault for not evaulating thier risks to inform them that they may need to buy flood insurance.
Interestingly, the article below this one is how people still aren\’t buying NFIP protection. Flooding has been excluded from HO policies for a long time, and if there\’s any blame, it\’s on the local agents for not clearly explaining what the policies cover (although I suspect in most cases they did, and the residents just chose to buy the cheapest coverage).
If forced to pay damages they contractually don\’t owe, the end result will be carriers pulling out of the states, and how does that help anyone going forward?
MY QUESTON IS THIS. WHAT ARE THE CONSUMERS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI GOING TO DO IF ONE, OR ALL OF THE MAJOR CARRIERS DECIDE NOT TO DO BUSINESS IN THIS STATE ANY LONGER?
SINCE A LEGAL CONTRACT IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT IS WRITTEN ON?
HOW WILL WE REBUILD THE COAST IS NO INSURANCE COMPANY WILL HANDLE THE RISK IN THE FUTURE?
\”When I use a word,\” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, \”it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.\”
See? There is no reason to actually read the policy, just decide on its meaning for yourself.
as i said before, the judiciary will tell the insurance companies what is covered and what is not regardless of what the policy says. good luck!