The problem with requiring flood insurance is that the max on the NFIP policies are so low that it doesn’t cover the multi-million dollar homes. I’m pretty sure the Corbans got paid out the max on the NFIP policy and they’re looking to get the rest from their homeowners.
They allowed the language because no insurer would write business on their coast if insurers have to pay for flood damage. I think most insurers pro-rate the loss with damage estimates by each peril, rather than flat out denying.
Cos. can’t require flood ins. along with a HO’s policy because it’s illegal to force an insured to buy one type policy in order to get another type.
One problem is that flood plain definitions only take into account flooding from runoff of surface water, they do not recognize flooding peril from storm surge, so you can be on the beach, but high enough that you won’t get flooded from runoff of surface water, so banks aren’t required to require flood ins., so homeowner doesn’t but it.
If homeowner does have to buy it, the agent should make every effort to place the flood with the homeowner ins. co. At least you’ve got one insurer, perhaps one adjuster, and the only worry is how the insurer will allocate the loss between the HO policy and the flood policy. There are some other complications as well (different valuation, for instance) but it will help.
Problem is the banks are only required to require the max. available from the NFIP. Excess flood is available, so they can insure the full value of their home, but I’ve never been able to get an insured to buy it.
Insurere use of a clause that says that if there is first wind damage, then subsequently there is water damage, then there is no coverage for the wind damage was wrong, very very wrong. Now the Mississippi Supreme Court has made that a part of state law.
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 problem with requiring flood insurance is that the max on the NFIP policies are so low that it doesn’t cover the multi-million dollar homes. I’m pretty sure the Corbans got paid out the max on the NFIP policy and they’re looking to get the rest from their homeowners.
They allowed the language because no insurer would write business on their coast if insurers have to pay for flood damage. I think most insurers pro-rate the loss with damage estimates by each peril, rather than flat out denying.
What will happen is a willingness for all of use not coastal to pay for these fools which insists on living down there.
Let them all pay for their claims in their own flood and wind pools…This is just crazy
Cos. can’t require flood ins. along with a HO’s policy because it’s illegal to force an insured to buy one type policy in order to get another type.
One problem is that flood plain definitions only take into account flooding from runoff of surface water, they do not recognize flooding peril from storm surge, so you can be on the beach, but high enough that you won’t get flooded from runoff of surface water, so banks aren’t required to require flood ins., so homeowner doesn’t but it.
If homeowner does have to buy it, the agent should make every effort to place the flood with the homeowner ins. co. At least you’ve got one insurer, perhaps one adjuster, and the only worry is how the insurer will allocate the loss between the HO policy and the flood policy. There are some other complications as well (different valuation, for instance) but it will help.
Problem is the banks are only required to require the max. available from the NFIP. Excess flood is available, so they can insure the full value of their home, but I’ve never been able to get an insured to buy it.
So the answer is to screw the homeowner? Other states get around the same problem with doing that.
Insurere use of a clause that says that if there is first wind damage, then subsequently there is water damage, then there is no coverage for the wind damage was wrong, very very wrong. Now the Mississippi Supreme Court has made that a part of state law.
Good for them.
The politicians will never allow that. They will gladly require us to subsidize them.
And now insurors will begin cancellations precedent to exiting Mississippi… or at least non-renew anything within 30 miles of the coastline…
Now Mississippi will be in the same situation as all the other hurricane prone coastal states.
And the homeowners won’t be blindsided by language that the Supreme Court ruled, 9 – 0, is simply wrong.