Need to go for the STATE – they receive federal funds annually for the maintenance — therefore there was a marina and a fountain constructed by the State, supposedly with those fed funds.
The court system really has been flooded with all these lawsuits from folks that are trying to see if they can get something back for what they paid for, but I figure if the Insurance Company isn\’t covering a loss because the cause was excluded, then refund the policyholders premium for the coverage after the home was unable to be occupied. That gives them something back!
Oh my, I sound harsh for the homeowner, but I really am sorry for their losses.
I hope everyone that wants to be covered in the event of a flood now has purchased the coverage & everyone that wants coverage for Wind has now purchased the coverage, or confirmed it is not excluded on their policy…
I think everyone needs to know what they pay for. Perhaps they did not look at their policy, that doesn\’t mean that they get the coverage just because they didn\’t know… duh!!!
Have a nice day & please represent the coverage you sell & then document the folks that just say no!!!!
If the court is going to interpret the policy to broaden it, are they going to allow the insurance companies to collect back dated premiums across the U.S. for the premiums they should be getting for that additional coverage?
As a New Yorker I can say that my state will not pay for the sunshine staters to enjoy the good weather on the ocean while we tend to our lake effect snow and high property taxes. At a recent dinner that I attended for agents our state senators agreed that a national risk program would only help those that live outside our state. It\’s time for the insurance companies to just play hardball with these states and offer flood on all their state policies with no exceptions. The money saved in legal fees alone would make up for any losses. You would also see many homeowners from those states complaining that they don\’t want to pay for their at risk neighbors. If I don\’t buy medical coverage because I say that I can\’t afford it, when I get cancer can I sue Blue Cross for denying me coverage? Enough said.
Flood/rising water claims were considered
by the Government when the Flood Insurance
program (perhaps improperly conceived)
was enacted. Make Flood a peril, spread
the cost to every property policy,continue
to enforce Zoning laws, and let the same
adjuster handle the entire claim.
Spreading the Risk is what insurance is
all about.
The thing that strikes about this ruling, beyond the wide spread potenial effect, is that the judge did find wording in the Hartford (and others) policy that, in his opinion did exclude these losses by the use of very simple words, \”regardless of cause\” or word to that effect. The fact that he upheld some wording and not others may make it harder on the companies the jugement went against.
This decision suggests that earthquake can no longer be excluded, either, because every object broken in a quake could have been made stronger … watch out CA!
If the court says flood is covered, can the homeowners carriers collect what they would have charged for the exposure?
Flood/rising water claims were considered
by the Government when the Flood Insurance
program (perhaps improperly conceived)
was enacted. Make Flood a peril, spread
the cost to every property policy,continue
to enforce Zoning laws, and let the same
adjuster handle the entire claim.
Spreading the Risk is what insurance is
all about.
$5 says the judge didn\’t have any flood coverage either. Given that 80% of the population lives within 100 miles of the US coastline, a national cat program wouldn\’t necessarily be propped up by the good folks in Missouri. However I\’ll put another $5 on the table that says they\’ll all be standing in line with their hands out when the New Madrid fault lets loose.
If you are not offering federal flood coverage to your insureds and getting a signed rejection/acknowledgment – call your E&O carrier and buy more coverage.
By the way, I hate to wish ill on anyone, but what would happen if Katrina hit Long Island? Obviously those NY state senators must all be from Buffalo.
I agree with Little Tx. They should be going after the state and not the insurer.
If the state was to maintain the levees and did not. Then that would be a man made mistake by the state not the insurer.
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.
Need to go for the STATE – they receive federal funds annually for the maintenance — therefore there was a marina and a fountain constructed by the State, supposedly with those fed funds.
The court system really has been flooded with all these lawsuits from folks that are trying to see if they can get something back for what they paid for, but I figure if the Insurance Company isn\’t covering a loss because the cause was excluded, then refund the policyholders premium for the coverage after the home was unable to be occupied. That gives them something back!
Oh my, I sound harsh for the homeowner, but I really am sorry for their losses.
I hope everyone that wants to be covered in the event of a flood now has purchased the coverage & everyone that wants coverage for Wind has now purchased the coverage, or confirmed it is not excluded on their policy…
I think everyone needs to know what they pay for. Perhaps they did not look at their policy, that doesn\’t mean that they get the coverage just because they didn\’t know… duh!!!
Have a nice day & please represent the coverage you sell & then document the folks that just say no!!!!
If the court is going to interpret the policy to broaden it, are they going to allow the insurance companies to collect back dated premiums across the U.S. for the premiums they should be getting for that additional coverage?
As a New Yorker I can say that my state will not pay for the sunshine staters to enjoy the good weather on the ocean while we tend to our lake effect snow and high property taxes. At a recent dinner that I attended for agents our state senators agreed that a national risk program would only help those that live outside our state. It\’s time for the insurance companies to just play hardball with these states and offer flood on all their state policies with no exceptions. The money saved in legal fees alone would make up for any losses. You would also see many homeowners from those states complaining that they don\’t want to pay for their at risk neighbors. If I don\’t buy medical coverage because I say that I can\’t afford it, when I get cancer can I sue Blue Cross for denying me coverage? Enough said.
Flood/rising water claims were considered
by the Government when the Flood Insurance
program (perhaps improperly conceived)
was enacted. Make Flood a peril, spread
the cost to every property policy,continue
to enforce Zoning laws, and let the same
adjuster handle the entire claim.
Spreading the Risk is what insurance is
all about.
The thing that strikes about this ruling, beyond the wide spread potenial effect, is that the judge did find wording in the Hartford (and others) policy that, in his opinion did exclude these losses by the use of very simple words, \”regardless of cause\” or word to that effect. The fact that he upheld some wording and not others may make it harder on the companies the jugement went against.
This decision suggests that earthquake can no longer be excluded, either, because every object broken in a quake could have been made stronger … watch out CA!
If the court says flood is covered, can the homeowners carriers collect what they would have charged for the exposure?
Flood/rising water claims were considered
by the Government when the Flood Insurance
program (perhaps improperly conceived)
was enacted. Make Flood a peril, spread
the cost to every property policy,continue
to enforce Zoning laws, and let the same
adjuster handle the entire claim.
Spreading the Risk is what insurance is
all about.
$5 says the judge didn\’t have any flood coverage either. Given that 80% of the population lives within 100 miles of the US coastline, a national cat program wouldn\’t necessarily be propped up by the good folks in Missouri. However I\’ll put another $5 on the table that says they\’ll all be standing in line with their hands out when the New Madrid fault lets loose.
If you are not offering federal flood coverage to your insureds and getting a signed rejection/acknowledgment – call your E&O carrier and buy more coverage.
By the way, I hate to wish ill on anyone, but what would happen if Katrina hit Long Island? Obviously those NY state senators must all be from Buffalo.
I agree with Little Tx. They should be going after the state and not the insurer.
If the state was to maintain the levees and did not. Then that would be a man made mistake by the state not the insurer.