Sen. Lott Wants Insurance Gap Disclosure Enforced by Feds

April 2, 2007

  • April 3, 2007 at 10:35 am
    Yankee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I would like to know what Senator Lott thinks about banking disclosure requirements and if he can understand the legalese attached to his credit card bill?

    Where was he on that issue, financial matters that effect consumers on a daily basis?

  • April 3, 2007 at 12:02 pm
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agreed…I have read many commercial and personal lines policies, and have yet to find one that is more difficult to understand than a credit card agreement. Talk about fine print…the entire credit terms are in print that I cannot read without a magnifying glass. Even then, it makes very little sense. How about a disclaimer in double size bold print on them?

  • April 3, 2007 at 1:45 am
    Kim David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Great idea, and not surprized that the Industry wants to fight this one.
    Evidence that we need to implement State Regulations, because there are no Regulations that protect the Insured or the Agent from betrayal or deception.

    However, if the proposed Insured reads the policy and understands that they are paying for Insurance but the policy does not provide financial protection for anything that could possible destroy their home, with the exception of fire.
    No One Would Buy The Policy! That\’s why the Insurer does not want to explain/expose the truth to the Insured.

    The way the policy is written has made tons of money for the Insurer, since the beginning. Ignorance of he Insured.
    In the end, they don\’t want to be exposed for selling Insurance without coverage.

    Trent Lott is on their trail like a blood hound.
    Good Work, Senator,Keep it up because we need more Senators like you.
    Perhaps one day we will be able to buy an Honest, Fair Policy.
    After all, this is America.

  • April 3, 2007 at 1:53 am
    Mary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Whoa, Kim, hold up. Even the ISO basic causes of loss form covers fire, lightning, explosion, windstorm or hail, smoke, aircraft or vehicles, riot or civil commotion, vandalism, sprinkler leakage, sinkhole collapse and volcanic action. There are limitations, but pretty sure we cna safely say that there is coverage for more than just damage by fire.

  • April 3, 2007 at 2:10 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Most policies are written by regulators and changed by regulators. That\’s what makes it so difficult to read, along with trying to write policies to address so many different state regulations. If it could all be placed on one page, it would be. The idea sounds great but it\’s simply ludicrous and will lead to more litigation. So, if it’s not on the first page, then what? We can’t write policies longer than a page because it wasn’t summarized on the 1st page and so we can’t depend upon it. We’ve become a nation of cry babies and whiners. Nothing is ever our fault or responsibility. And the rest of the nation should pay for you to rebuild on a flood plane, the side of a mountain that’s going to slide, an earthquake prone area. This is your economic future; pay some attention to it and stop whining and expecting everyone else to pay for your mistakes. Lott is a wealthy man who had a home on the beach. He didn\’t know it could flood? Why didn\’t he buy flood insurance, including an excess policy for the value above $250K? Because he didn\’t want the expense and his brother-in-law could sue and make you feel sorry for a super wealthy man who is whining.

  • April 3, 2007 at 2:30 am
    Jewel says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    \”As an added bonus, I know Lott must be off his rocker because this site NEVER gets 100% agreement.\”- Mjolnir

    And then there was 99.9% agreement.

    Well it was nice while it lasted, huh?

    I vote for Lott being off his rocker. Now we are at 99.95% agreement.

  • April 3, 2007 at 2:53 am
    Chad Balaamaba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This wouldn\’t fix your issue, Kim. You have indicated you have coverage that should have covered your property but was denied.

    Regardless of the \’one page of exclusions\’, a carrier can still choose to pay or deny the loss presented, right or wrong.

    This is just Trent Lott exposing his self interested ignorance.

  • April 3, 2007 at 2:58 am
    Give It Up says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Carriers will soon be excluding every type of risk and just collecting premiums!

  • April 3, 2007 at 3:09 am
    Al Foil says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    please go take your meds and put on your tin foil hat. you sound crazy and probably look it too.

  • April 3, 2007 at 3:31 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey Senator Lott look at the tax code.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*