Adjusterjoe: I have to admit, I half-expected something different from you when I saw your post. We see eye-to-eye on this one, I’m pretty sure the next step is watching for a red horse ride across the sky or a news report that there’s snow in…
At last – a bit of calm deliberate interpertation of a homeowners policy’s provision. Flood is definitely excluded on almost all homeowners policies. If the insured’s expected flood coverage, they should have bought flood insurance.
If you have even visited New Orleans you know that it is a flood just waiting to happen – it is, after all, below the level of both Lake Ponchatrain and the Might Mississippi. Were I a resident, I would have purchased flood insurance. At least I would be protected again damages from a levee break.
> may have “purchased” flood insurance but that wasn’t the question — It was all about those who didn’t wanted coverage or didn’t READ their policy… Trying to change the standards of the policy – when flood is clearly excluded was a joke. Yes, it was an enormous tragedy and yes the ensuing aftermath was hard to imagine just looking at the media coverage and the photos —
But those ‘po people wuz n gonna pay for something they couldn’t afford — that’s what ‘da rest of us iz for… Welfare, FEMA aid, outrageous taxes and a hand out
Thanks to those who came to their senses and set the record straight…FLOOD IS EXCLUDED
Wanna make a bet on how many of those people who were able to move back…didn’t buy flood insurance …?
I completely agree with the decision— if you are surrounded by 3 LARGE bodies of water, one being an ocean that is prone to hurricanes then you should either have flood insure or be willing to accept the consequences of not having it without complaining. I do sympathize with everyone down there and having been an adjuster down there do know first hand of the damage that happened. But the policies clearly state there is NO coverage for flood waters. And even those of us living in the interior states know that flood insurance is a separate policy from the standard home owners policy.
It was another Rey – Ray Nagin who first pulled the race card asking for help to keep New Orleans a “chocolate city” although that was after the accusations that the slow government response was due to the racial profile of the Katrina victims in New Orleans coming from inept morons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
While I thought the Kingfish ebonics was in poor taste, HeyRey didn’t start the racial comments.
Besides, he never actually made a racial comment, he just typed phonetically. Are you saying that’s how “those people” talk? How racist!
Haven’t read what other people have posted but what a fantastic ruling. Sorry but a contract is a contract is a contract and you just make stuff up (and/or out of thin air) to avoid or void out the wording of a contract. The flood exclusion is clearly and extremely unambiguous.
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.
This was a good decision on a completely different matter than that of wind vs flood going on in Mississippi and south of New Orleans.
Adjusterjoe: I have to admit, I half-expected something different from you when I saw your post. We see eye-to-eye on this one, I’m pretty sure the next step is watching for a red horse ride across the sky or a news report that there’s snow in…
At last – a bit of calm deliberate interpertation of a homeowners policy’s provision. Flood is definitely excluded on almost all homeowners policies. If the insured’s expected flood coverage, they should have bought flood insurance.
If you have even visited New Orleans you know that it is a flood just waiting to happen – it is, after all, below the level of both Lake Ponchatrain and the Might Mississippi. Were I a resident, I would have purchased flood insurance. At least I would be protected again damages from a levee break.
> may have “purchased” flood insurance but that wasn’t the question — It was all about those who didn’t wanted coverage or didn’t READ their policy… Trying to change the standards of the policy – when flood is clearly excluded was a joke. Yes, it was an enormous tragedy and yes the ensuing aftermath was hard to imagine just looking at the media coverage and the photos —
But those ‘po people wuz n gonna pay for something they couldn’t afford — that’s what ‘da rest of us iz for… Welfare, FEMA aid, outrageous taxes and a hand out
Thanks to those who came to their senses and set the record straight…FLOOD IS EXCLUDED
Wanna make a bet on how many of those people who were able to move back…didn’t buy flood insurance …?
Finally, a common sense decision from our judicial system. Its about time, I only wish there were more of them.
I completely agree with the decision— if you are surrounded by 3 LARGE bodies of water, one being an ocean that is prone to hurricanes then you should either have flood insure or be willing to accept the consequences of not having it without complaining. I do sympathize with everyone down there and having been an adjuster down there do know first hand of the damage that happened. But the policies clearly state there is NO coverage for flood waters. And even those of us living in the interior states know that flood insurance is a separate policy from the standard home owners policy.
HeyRey:
There really is no need to add racism to the line of comments. You could have made your point without the vernacular.
It was another Rey – Ray Nagin who first pulled the race card asking for help to keep New Orleans a “chocolate city” although that was after the accusations that the slow government response was due to the racial profile of the Katrina victims in New Orleans coming from inept morons like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
While I thought the Kingfish ebonics was in poor taste, HeyRey didn’t start the racial comments.
Besides, he never actually made a racial comment, he just typed phonetically. Are you saying that’s how “those people” talk? How racist!
Heh… Devil’s Advocate is a fun game!
Haven’t read what other people have posted but what a fantastic ruling. Sorry but a contract is a contract is a contract and you just make stuff up (and/or out of thin air) to avoid or void out the wording of a contract. The flood exclusion is clearly and extremely unambiguous.