Rosie, do you know what the figures are? I have to admit, I do not, but I know the vast majority, very high number, are paid.
So, the vast majority are paid, yet the insurance industry as a whole must have missed the devious memo where we deny and refuse to pay what we owe.
Now you say you don\’t care about profits, but earlier that was your argument, \’what about insurance profits?\’.
Your arguments shift like sands thru an hourglass.
HO policies have flood exclusions; sorry, but they are right there. If you want them on page one, I really don\’t give a rats, because I know the same whiners like yourself will still yell \’uncle\’ when you suffer a loss and it\’s not covered because it was some sinister plan between insurers and the Bush Admin to deny rightful benefits even though the flood exclusion has been in the HO policy for like a zillion years.
I love honest debate. You are not an honest person; you make a point, can\’t prove it, and move on to the next mindless scream fit. It used to be a little fun to poke you, but you\’re becoming a bore like your namesake. My recommendation is this:
read your policy. read your credit card statement. read the constitution. don\’t depend on CBS for all your information. maybe consider some counseling, too. And it\’s ok to have fun in life. (and profit if you can).
\”The Agent should have mandated flood insurance and explained this to their proposed insured.\” This is so stupid I couldn\’t leave it alone…should the agent force them to take lower ded, higher limits, vote Democratic? The agent CANNOT force coverages on their client!!!!!
Ever hear of the customer? The customer chooses what they buy, unless it\’s mandated by law. So contact your Democratic Congress and convince them to mandate flood coverage for everyone.
I can hear that conversation between the agent and the prospective insured now…
Agent: You are in an area prone to hurricane loss and while this policy covers the wind portion of the loss, flooding is excluded.
Insured: Ok, so what should I do?
Agent: I would recommend that you purchase a flood policy. For the value of your home, this a flood policy would cost you $XXXX.
Insured: You\’re kidding, I\’m not going to pay that much for a policy that only covers flood! Besides, when was the last time that we had a major hurricane come through?
Rosey, wake up. The common point and majority opinion in these posts is that YES, carriers should pay what is owed and deny what is not covered. You seem to imply by this latest post that no one in the insurance industry has any empathy for the many people that lost homes, businesses, etc. I for one empathize & sympathize with all of those that sustained injury & damage from the devastating storms in \’04 and \’05, especially Katrina. However, empathy does not equate to paying claims that are not covered. Did some insurers deny claims that should have been paid? Probably, and they are now paying in other ways for their poor claim handling. Does your policy actually say \”hurricane coverage\”? I do not think so. You either have a policy with specified causes of loss (of which hurricane is not specified) or you have an open peril policy that pays for all causes of loss except those specifically excluded AND YES FLOOD IS EXCLUDED. You may have a windstorm or hurricane deductible, which is higher because of the risk in your area, but you do not have \”hurricane\” coverage. If your carrier did not pay wind damage to your property, then you have a legitimate beef with them. Take it up in the courts as others have done. Do not expect Trent Lott and the likes to become the saviour for every person who did not purchase the proper coverage, and is struggling to recover through SBA loans, donations, handouts, charity, etc. I agree with Chad\’s post…you cannot paint the entire industry with your brush claiming every carrier is \’bad\’.
In testimony before the U S Congress 2/28/07, I.I.I. President Dr Robert Hartwig stated that the Insurance Companies had paid $40.6 Billion to settle over 1 million claims from Katrina. Does this sound like an industry that does not pay LEGITIMATE claims?
My definition of insurance proficiency is knowing that deductibles don\’t always have to come out of pocket, and then getting all worked up over \”finding money to save for deductibles\”.
I thought most agents knew that most (not, all) deductibles are simply \”deducted\” from the loss payout.
I have just fired Kim David as my new insurance director and will be appointing Joanna Eiermann that J O A N N A E I E R M A N N. She has the exact qualifications for the position. Her abilities to balme others and to engage in complete rhetoric with no direction or purpose other than to confuse and inflame her adversaries are impressive if not astounding. Do not worry about the paper I have invented a new process to make paper from Carbon Dioxide it will only cost us $52 per sheet a small price to pay to save trees and inform the public what is truely covered in the policy of insurance they already cant afford.
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.
\”The Agent should have mandated flood insurance and explained this to their proposed insured.\”
Oh yeah, and I am sure they suggested this too. But you didn\’t want to pay for it, right?
P.S. Great posts Chad and Gill… keep \’em coming!
Rosie, do you know what the figures are? I have to admit, I do not, but I know the vast majority, very high number, are paid.
So, the vast majority are paid, yet the insurance industry as a whole must have missed the devious memo where we deny and refuse to pay what we owe.
Now you say you don\’t care about profits, but earlier that was your argument, \’what about insurance profits?\’.
Your arguments shift like sands thru an hourglass.
HO policies have flood exclusions; sorry, but they are right there. If you want them on page one, I really don\’t give a rats, because I know the same whiners like yourself will still yell \’uncle\’ when you suffer a loss and it\’s not covered because it was some sinister plan between insurers and the Bush Admin to deny rightful benefits even though the flood exclusion has been in the HO policy for like a zillion years.
I love honest debate. You are not an honest person; you make a point, can\’t prove it, and move on to the next mindless scream fit. It used to be a little fun to poke you, but you\’re becoming a bore like your namesake. My recommendation is this:
read your policy. read your credit card statement. read the constitution. don\’t depend on CBS for all your information. maybe consider some counseling, too. And it\’s ok to have fun in life. (and profit if you can).
Rosey, thanks for this statement:
\”The Agent should have mandated flood insurance and explained this to their proposed insured.\” This is so stupid I couldn\’t leave it alone…should the agent force them to take lower ded, higher limits, vote Democratic? The agent CANNOT force coverages on their client!!!!!
Ever hear of the customer? The customer chooses what they buy, unless it\’s mandated by law. So contact your Democratic Congress and convince them to mandate flood coverage for everyone.
I can hear that conversation between the agent and the prospective insured now…
Agent: You are in an area prone to hurricane loss and while this policy covers the wind portion of the loss, flooding is excluded.
Insured: Ok, so what should I do?
Agent: I would recommend that you purchase a flood policy. For the value of your home, this a flood policy would cost you $XXXX.
Insured: You\’re kidding, I\’m not going to pay that much for a policy that only covers flood! Besides, when was the last time that we had a major hurricane come through?
Rosey, wake up. The common point and majority opinion in these posts is that YES, carriers should pay what is owed and deny what is not covered. You seem to imply by this latest post that no one in the insurance industry has any empathy for the many people that lost homes, businesses, etc. I for one empathize & sympathize with all of those that sustained injury & damage from the devastating storms in \’04 and \’05, especially Katrina. However, empathy does not equate to paying claims that are not covered. Did some insurers deny claims that should have been paid? Probably, and they are now paying in other ways for their poor claim handling. Does your policy actually say \”hurricane coverage\”? I do not think so. You either have a policy with specified causes of loss (of which hurricane is not specified) or you have an open peril policy that pays for all causes of loss except those specifically excluded AND YES FLOOD IS EXCLUDED. You may have a windstorm or hurricane deductible, which is higher because of the risk in your area, but you do not have \”hurricane\” coverage. If your carrier did not pay wind damage to your property, then you have a legitimate beef with them. Take it up in the courts as others have done. Do not expect Trent Lott and the likes to become the saviour for every person who did not purchase the proper coverage, and is struggling to recover through SBA loans, donations, handouts, charity, etc. I agree with Chad\’s post…you cannot paint the entire industry with your brush claiming every carrier is \’bad\’.
Rosey, I guess agents are too busy posting comments on the Journal to explain coverage to policyholders!
In testimony before the U S Congress 2/28/07, I.I.I. President Dr Robert Hartwig stated that the Insurance Companies had paid $40.6 Billion to settle over 1 million claims from Katrina. Does this sound like an industry that does not pay LEGITIMATE claims?
My definition of insurance proficiency is knowing that deductibles don\’t always have to come out of pocket, and then getting all worked up over \”finding money to save for deductibles\”.
I thought most agents knew that most (not, all) deductibles are simply \”deducted\” from the loss payout.
\”Rosey, I guess agents are too busy posting comments on the Journal to explain coverage to policyholders!\”- Anne
Hey Anne, not all of us are agents!
Thanks for the comment though =)
Maybe I should agree. It sure did seem like Joanna posted an awful lot of comments during the day. She probably doesn\’t have any clients though. :(
I have just fired Kim David as my new insurance director and will be appointing Joanna Eiermann that J O A N N A E I E R M A N N. She has the exact qualifications for the position. Her abilities to balme others and to engage in complete rhetoric with no direction or purpose other than to confuse and inflame her adversaries are impressive if not astounding. Do not worry about the paper I have invented a new process to make paper from Carbon Dioxide it will only cost us $52 per sheet a small price to pay to save trees and inform the public what is truely covered in the policy of insurance they already cant afford.