Perhaps a better way to look at this is: The wind insurer should not (and is not) pay for flood losses, they should lawfully pay for wind losses. To suggest that the wind insurers are paying for flood losses is disingenuous and is an attempt to distort the fact that wind insurers are not LAWFULLY paying legitimate wind claims. And AYGI, if you had been paying attention over the past 8 months, your problem with the VPL is not that flood was a covered peril; it is that wind was A covered peril (not the). Don’t go Bubba on us: “It depends on what your definition of a is”?
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.
Perhaps a better way to look at this is: The wind insurer should not (and is not) pay for flood losses, they should lawfully pay for wind losses. To suggest that the wind insurers are paying for flood losses is disingenuous and is an attempt to distort the fact that wind insurers are not LAWFULLY paying legitimate wind claims. And AYGI, if you had been paying attention over the past 8 months, your problem with the VPL is not that flood was a covered peril; it is that wind was A covered peril (not the). Don’t go Bubba on us: “It depends on what your definition of a is”?