Call me skeptical. On the outside, this does not look to bad, but anything that Maxine Waters finds good, must not be good for the country. Therefore, I don\’t like this bill.
My clients, who were severly affected by the Mother\’s day flooding in 2006 would have been well served to have had the option to purchase business interruption coverage via the flood policy. Although there was building coverage and contents coverage, the loss of income and need to continue paying while adjusting caused several to go out of business. So, even if a business was prudent by purchasing coverage, they could still lose their business due to the limits available to them.
I think the business income and higher limits are a very good thing. However, there will still be those too cheap to purchase flood insurance, even after Katrina, and will have their hands out again next time.
Even though agents try their hardest to educate their clients,
the NFIP should do mass TV advertisements stating that flood losses are not covered by homeowners insurance. Maybe then some of the people will finally get it.
INSURANCE NEVER IN ITS DESIGN WAS SUGGESTED TO PAY ALL LOSSES. It is for catastrophes and to help out. The NFIP was designed to pay for property only and for losses in areas where the loss probability is 100%. To add on additional coverages for those who build in these areas is blatantly stupid. The losses to the federal gov\’t will be compounded 10-20 times what they are now.
Maybe from an adjuster\’s point of view it is not a good idea for expanded coverage but many buildings affected are situtaed in the 100+ year zone and they have been there for over 100 years (New England). For business owners looking to be responsible in purchasing coverage, we should be able to sell them the same protection for flood as other risks.
Joe, flooding is a national peril not just to coastal areas. It also is not limited to tidal surge but to rising water. I guess it never rains where you live.
The business income is greatly needed by small business. Have you ever tried jumping through the hoops to get a SBA loan?
secondary home owners continue to be treated as second class citizens. They cant buy replacement cost coverage while primary home ownrrs can. Rational? They must be wealthy so they can afford a second home and depreciated loss. The loss experience for those in a riverine flood plain who have been milking the program for years is miserable.Are they still exempting those home owners who build/rebuild below sea level behind federal levees from having to have a flood policy?It is aggravating thatt we all paid for levees but theyare exempt from having to buy flood insurance while charging seacoast dwellers for their riverine losses? does FEMA propose to eliminate the restriction they have of giving no grant money to pay off deductibles ? Home owners in the northeast are regularly being hit with 5% wind storm deductibles which will require very large out of pocket payouts. I believe in a democracy but I sure am tired of not getting the same treatment as others in higher flood prone areas! The loss ratios of the NE seacoast areas keep subsidizing the gulf and riverine areas. Insurance means spreading the risk,not transferring it to the wealthier who \”can afford it more\” The so called subsidy in many cases is for people who had the foresite to buy flood insurance when it first came out and have the zone change. I question if they should loose their grandfathered rates although I can see justification upon sale of the property to not allow passing the grandfathering onto new purchasers. many of the early flood purchasers who started when the program began are reaching retirement age and removing \”subsidies\” may backfire and cause them to drop coverage instead.
I wish that replacement cost was offered as an option for all.Actuarily the risk is the same ! I wish that law and ordinance protection was available on the first loss.Why do we need one claim before mitigation costs are covered? I wish that Fema paid their adjusters for their time and skill and not as a percentage of the amount of the claims settled amount. I wonder if those who tout the new laws considered that in their reform
There is no reason why the federal government should be subsidizing vacation home risk. So I like the idea of doing away with insuring such. On the broader issue of insurability in the flood plain I beleive that the NFIP community recommended building codes must be tightened significantly, to the extent of no new building (50% rule)within the 100 year floodplain except in extreme cases.
The answer is very simple. Locate in a non flood area. Again you make the mistake of assuming that insurance is designed to make everything 1000% as it was before. That is not the disign or purpose. There is a reason that private insurance does not write flood insurance. The best idea to help these flood property owners would be an emergency savings account to cover the diffrence betweeen what flood pays and what they lost. I would not be opposed to including this type savings account into the policy premium (kinda like the Social security privatization suggested). BTW, flood is flood regardless as ot whtehr it is inland or coastal. Your comment about inland vs coastal makes no sense whatsoever!!!
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.
Call me skeptical. On the outside, this does not look to bad, but anything that Maxine Waters finds good, must not be good for the country. Therefore, I don\’t like this bill.
Maybe the merits of the program proposed should be more imporant than partisan politics if our country is ever to move forward again.
My clients, who were severly affected by the Mother\’s day flooding in 2006 would have been well served to have had the option to purchase business interruption coverage via the flood policy. Although there was building coverage and contents coverage, the loss of income and need to continue paying while adjusting caused several to go out of business. So, even if a business was prudent by purchasing coverage, they could still lose their business due to the limits available to them.
I think the business income and higher limits are a very good thing. However, there will still be those too cheap to purchase flood insurance, even after Katrina, and will have their hands out again next time.
Even though agents try their hardest to educate their clients,
the NFIP should do mass TV advertisements stating that flood losses are not covered by homeowners insurance. Maybe then some of the people will finally get it.
INSURANCE NEVER IN ITS DESIGN WAS SUGGESTED TO PAY ALL LOSSES. It is for catastrophes and to help out. The NFIP was designed to pay for property only and for losses in areas where the loss probability is 100%. To add on additional coverages for those who build in these areas is blatantly stupid. The losses to the federal gov\’t will be compounded 10-20 times what they are now.
Maybe from an adjuster\’s point of view it is not a good idea for expanded coverage but many buildings affected are situtaed in the 100+ year zone and they have been there for over 100 years (New England). For business owners looking to be responsible in purchasing coverage, we should be able to sell them the same protection for flood as other risks.
Joe, flooding is a national peril not just to coastal areas. It also is not limited to tidal surge but to rising water. I guess it never rains where you live.
The business income is greatly needed by small business. Have you ever tried jumping through the hoops to get a SBA loan?
secondary home owners continue to be treated as second class citizens. They cant buy replacement cost coverage while primary home ownrrs can. Rational? They must be wealthy so they can afford a second home and depreciated loss. The loss experience for those in a riverine flood plain who have been milking the program for years is miserable.Are they still exempting those home owners who build/rebuild below sea level behind federal levees from having to have a flood policy?It is aggravating thatt we all paid for levees but theyare exempt from having to buy flood insurance while charging seacoast dwellers for their riverine losses? does FEMA propose to eliminate the restriction they have of giving no grant money to pay off deductibles ? Home owners in the northeast are regularly being hit with 5% wind storm deductibles which will require very large out of pocket payouts. I believe in a democracy but I sure am tired of not getting the same treatment as others in higher flood prone areas! The loss ratios of the NE seacoast areas keep subsidizing the gulf and riverine areas. Insurance means spreading the risk,not transferring it to the wealthier who \”can afford it more\” The so called subsidy in many cases is for people who had the foresite to buy flood insurance when it first came out and have the zone change. I question if they should loose their grandfathered rates although I can see justification upon sale of the property to not allow passing the grandfathering onto new purchasers. many of the early flood purchasers who started when the program began are reaching retirement age and removing \”subsidies\” may backfire and cause them to drop coverage instead.
I wish that replacement cost was offered as an option for all.Actuarily the risk is the same ! I wish that law and ordinance protection was available on the first loss.Why do we need one claim before mitigation costs are covered? I wish that Fema paid their adjusters for their time and skill and not as a percentage of the amount of the claims settled amount. I wonder if those who tout the new laws considered that in their reform
There is no reason why the federal government should be subsidizing vacation home risk. So I like the idea of doing away with insuring such. On the broader issue of insurability in the flood plain I beleive that the NFIP community recommended building codes must be tightened significantly, to the extent of no new building (50% rule)within the 100 year floodplain except in extreme cases.
The answer is very simple. Locate in a non flood area. Again you make the mistake of assuming that insurance is designed to make everything 1000% as it was before. That is not the disign or purpose. There is a reason that private insurance does not write flood insurance. The best idea to help these flood property owners would be an emergency savings account to cover the diffrence betweeen what flood pays and what they lost. I would not be opposed to including this type savings account into the policy premium (kinda like the Social security privatization suggested). BTW, flood is flood regardless as ot whtehr it is inland or coastal. Your comment about inland vs coastal makes no sense whatsoever!!!