So, given the figures used in the article ($400 premium per $100,000 of coverage), you should really be paying $2,000 for your flood coverage. You’re not carrying your load. Just messing with you.
But, you are right. Flood coverage should be mandatory for those in flood areas, just as Auto insurance is mandatory in most states. There will be some who flaunt the rules by not purchasing any coverage. But, if it is required by the Mortgage companies, there will be a good concentration of policy holders help relieve the taxpayers in non-flood areas who end up subsidizing the uninsured.
I forgot to mention that the coverage is limited to a maximum of $250k, so it DOES work out to an avg of $400 per $100K of coverage.
Mortgage companies DO require flood insurance if you live in a flood zone rated above a certain level. The problem are all those with no mortgages, or living in an area with a flood rating not commensurate with the actual risk.
Since 08 is an election year. Congress will do what they normally do, nothing. They do not want to piss off their constituents by doing the right thing now do they!
Key West Agent: You’re so right. Their constituents wouldn’t know what hit ’em if Congress suddenly and without warning began actually enacting legislation that benefited the public rather than members of Congress.
And to the Ultimate of Ultimates: I apologize to toilets everywhere. I was rash and unthinking when making my remarks and I’m ashamed.
Flushing the toilet could be another expense, like $4000.00 toilets, if we left congress buy them.
All they worry about is what they can do to hurt the other party!
With regard to spreading the “risk” as some posters have proposed.
I’d be willing to hazard (no pun intended) a guess, that the vast majority of people flooded in the mid-west are in Low to Moderate Risk flood zones. Historically, 25 to 30% of all flooding occurs in these low risk areas.
Compare the cost of the Preferred Risk Policy to that of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) for the same limits in these low to moderate risk zones, and the savings is substantial.
Problem is, most mortgage companies will not escrow for flood premiums unless the coverage is manditory. So for Joe Average, paying the lumpsum premium rather than spreading it out through their mortgage payments, leads to a number of policies lapsing after a few years of no flood occurrances.
All of the country is a flood zone, and agents will serve their customers (and themselves) well by offering the coverage.
I disagree that all the country is a flood zone. I live at the top of a hill in IA and if a flood reaches me, I am going to be looking for the ark.
That being said, I agree that flood insurance needs to be mandatory in flood zones. Hopefully that would keep all of those that can’t pay the premiums out of the flood zones in the first place.
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.
So, given the figures used in the article ($400 premium per $100,000 of coverage), you should really be paying $2,000 for your flood coverage. You’re not carrying your load. Just messing with you.
But, you are right. Flood coverage should be mandatory for those in flood areas, just as Auto insurance is mandatory in most states. There will be some who flaunt the rules by not purchasing any coverage. But, if it is required by the Mortgage companies, there will be a good concentration of policy holders help relieve the taxpayers in non-flood areas who end up subsidizing the uninsured.
I forgot to mention that the coverage is limited to a maximum of $250k, so it DOES work out to an avg of $400 per $100K of coverage.
Mortgage companies DO require flood insurance if you live in a flood zone rated above a certain level. The problem are all those with no mortgages, or living in an area with a flood rating not commensurate with the actual risk.
Since 08 is an election year. Congress will do what they normally do, nothing. They do not want to piss off their constituents by doing the right thing now do they!
Key West Agent: You’re so right. Their constituents wouldn’t know what hit ’em if Congress suddenly and without warning began actually enacting legislation that benefited the public rather than members of Congress.
And to the Ultimate of Ultimates: I apologize to toilets everywhere. I was rash and unthinking when making my remarks and I’m ashamed.
Flushing the toilet could be another expense, like $4000.00 toilets, if we left congress buy them.
All they worry about is what they can do to hurt the other party!
What about the money we are spending in Iraq just so they can trash it again!
With regard to spreading the “risk” as some posters have proposed.
I’d be willing to hazard (no pun intended) a guess, that the vast majority of people flooded in the mid-west are in Low to Moderate Risk flood zones. Historically, 25 to 30% of all flooding occurs in these low risk areas.
Compare the cost of the Preferred Risk Policy to that of the Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP) for the same limits in these low to moderate risk zones, and the savings is substantial.
Problem is, most mortgage companies will not escrow for flood premiums unless the coverage is manditory. So for Joe Average, paying the lumpsum premium rather than spreading it out through their mortgage payments, leads to a number of policies lapsing after a few years of no flood occurrances.
All of the country is a flood zone, and agents will serve their customers (and themselves) well by offering the coverage.
Fla. Agent, you are absolutely right! For the small premium of Preferred Risk it would be well worth it.
I disagree that all the country is a flood zone. I live at the top of a hill in IA and if a flood reaches me, I am going to be looking for the ark.
That being said, I agree that flood insurance needs to be mandatory in flood zones. Hopefully that would keep all of those that can’t pay the premiums out of the flood zones in the first place.
What about it?