“A new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on how the NFIP and the Federal Emergency Management Agency handled hurricane claims found complications with private homeowners policies generally began with flood damage exclusions because these require consumers to purchase multiple policies for adequate coverage. This, the GAO said, caused gaps in coverage and ambiguity in claims.
The process was further weakened when properties were subjected to the combination of high winds and flooding because “the extent of coverage under each policy depended on the cause of the damages, as determined through the claims adjustment process and the policy terms that cover a particular type of damage,” said the GAO. “And evidence at the scene of the damage is often limited.”
— using the article’s information, this is the heart of the all those lawsuits and this is was caused gaps of insurance. who or in this case what damage was caused by what?… so here’s the problem, with the combination of them combined, you truly won’t know how much was really cause by which occurance since a hurricane is a combination of both. the hurricane is what caused the leavies to break. the destructive force of the wind cause unstable conditions of housing, (which if you look at Andrew), caused a variety of problems as well.
there should be a power to purchase a combination policy for those prone to hurricanes that covers both flood/wind since the power of mother nature is extreme. basically, if you have hurricane coverage – it should cover both flood and wind. this is what it should be instead of 2 separate coverages and both are denying claims unfairly only because of the unique situation. this is another reason why state farm is fighting some of her claims (and possibly fiddling with numbers).
again, hurricanes are disasters and we all know full well his/her damage do the society where we live. it’s not like expecting an overflowing river because it rained for 5 days straight or a tornado just happened to come swinging by my house. hurricanes carry both that weight of wind and water and pending on it’s category – cause great damage to lives and property. afterall, on an auto policy – don’t we cover MOTHER NATURE CLAIMS under comprehensive, that includes vandalism.
There is an interesting revelation within this article. Inadvertently the GAO has identified a problem with adjusters. It is amazing that it took the cover of an event the size and magnatude of Katrina to bring this problem to light of day. I would venture to say the not more than three adjusters per state when assigned to adjust any claim (provided all were presented the exact same scenario) could or would come up with the same answer. That is providing you could get them to return your call.
this article talks about homeowners carring multiple policies to fully cover their property. Will new policies be availble to offer complete coverage on 1 policy.
The problem w/a single policy covering both wind and water is that the feds subsidize the flood program and the wind exposure is left to the free market.
The insurance companies cannot and do not want to handle the flood exposure—it is too big for any of them, hence existing federal regulation & subsidization. Insurers don’t want the feds to take on the wind exposure b/c wind coverage is a lucrative source of premium dollars.
The obvious solution is all the coverage on one policy. We had that years ago. You have to agree that solves the claim problem, of who covers what.
Next comes the premium cost. When everyone carries the whole policy coverage, the law of large numbers applies,and premium cost is not so bad. ie, add flood to everyone, charge extra $50 to everyone. Done.
It was done, it worked. Then changed.
Last, keep the govt. out of this. Govt. does nothing very well.
George, are you talking about a national solution? You have to be b/c there is inadequate spread of risk on the state level.
Nationally, it’s not that easy either. People in the middle of the country will strenuously object to subsidizing the wind exposure for those who enjoy the luxury of living on the coast.
How would you respond if you lived in NY and were asked to subsidize the earthquake or wildfire risk of those who live in CA?
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.
“A new report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on how the NFIP and the Federal Emergency Management Agency handled hurricane claims found complications with private homeowners policies generally began with flood damage exclusions because these require consumers to purchase multiple policies for adequate coverage. This, the GAO said, caused gaps in coverage and ambiguity in claims.
The process was further weakened when properties were subjected to the combination of high winds and flooding because “the extent of coverage under each policy depended on the cause of the damages, as determined through the claims adjustment process and the policy terms that cover a particular type of damage,” said the GAO. “And evidence at the scene of the damage is often limited.”
— using the article’s information, this is the heart of the all those lawsuits and this is was caused gaps of insurance. who or in this case what damage was caused by what?… so here’s the problem, with the combination of them combined, you truly won’t know how much was really cause by which occurance since a hurricane is a combination of both. the hurricane is what caused the leavies to break. the destructive force of the wind cause unstable conditions of housing, (which if you look at Andrew), caused a variety of problems as well.
there should be a power to purchase a combination policy for those prone to hurricanes that covers both flood/wind since the power of mother nature is extreme. basically, if you have hurricane coverage – it should cover both flood and wind. this is what it should be instead of 2 separate coverages and both are denying claims unfairly only because of the unique situation. this is another reason why state farm is fighting some of her claims (and possibly fiddling with numbers).
again, hurricanes are disasters and we all know full well his/her damage do the society where we live. it’s not like expecting an overflowing river because it rained for 5 days straight or a tornado just happened to come swinging by my house. hurricanes carry both that weight of wind and water and pending on it’s category – cause great damage to lives and property. afterall, on an auto policy – don’t we cover MOTHER NATURE CLAIMS under comprehensive, that includes vandalism.
There is an interesting revelation within this article. Inadvertently the GAO has identified a problem with adjusters. It is amazing that it took the cover of an event the size and magnatude of Katrina to bring this problem to light of day. I would venture to say the not more than three adjusters per state when assigned to adjust any claim (provided all were presented the exact same scenario) could or would come up with the same answer. That is providing you could get them to return your call.
this article talks about homeowners carring multiple policies to fully cover their property. Will new policies be availble to offer complete coverage on 1 policy.
The problem w/a single policy covering both wind and water is that the feds subsidize the flood program and the wind exposure is left to the free market.
The insurance companies cannot and do not want to handle the flood exposure—it is too big for any of them, hence existing federal regulation & subsidization. Insurers don’t want the feds to take on the wind exposure b/c wind coverage is a lucrative source of premium dollars.
The simple answer is for FEMA to cover all damage from a named storm – wind and flood – on one policy.
To try and avoid misunderstandings, the Texas TCPIA policy covers only the peril of windstorm. Hurricane is never mentioned.
Tinkerbell:
Thank you for the SIMPLE straightforward truth.
The obvious solution is all the coverage on one policy. We had that years ago. You have to agree that solves the claim problem, of who covers what.
Next comes the premium cost. When everyone carries the whole policy coverage, the law of large numbers applies,and premium cost is not so bad. ie, add flood to everyone, charge extra $50 to everyone. Done.
It was done, it worked. Then changed.
Last, keep the govt. out of this. Govt. does nothing very well.
George, are you talking about a national solution? You have to be b/c there is inadequate spread of risk on the state level.
Nationally, it’s not that easy either. People in the middle of the country will strenuously object to subsidizing the wind exposure for those who enjoy the luxury of living on the coast.
How would you respond if you lived in NY and were asked to subsidize the earthquake or wildfire risk of those who live in CA?
When was flood ever covered on a regular policy? I don’t recall that.