Miss. Rep. Taylor Suggests Carriers Reclassify Katrina’s Damage, Make Flood Program Participation ‘Retroactive’

September 20, 2005

  • September 20, 2005 at 7:19 am
    LL says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Look bub, the’wind-driven’ argument was created by ambulance chasing lawyers and useless politicians. It doesn’t matter if the ocean or lake water was driven by wind, a boat, a giant hand reaching down from the sky, ONLY THE RESULT COUNTS–FLOODING occured! Things got really wet from rising water! Huge casinos pushed off their moorings! Houses peeking out of the surface of the water with perfectly intact roofs!

  • September 20, 2005 at 8:55 am
    Wrong is still wrong says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    When was it ever decided that Insurors now are responsible for PAIN! You sound broken hearted over Katrina…I am too. Probably everyone reading this is too. Our fellow Americans are hurting. That being said: Insurance Carriers shouldn’t pay for flood claims. They’ve never collected premium on the risk nor have they ever expected to pay claims for flood and never priced for it.

    I feel sorry for the poor people who did not have insurance for the furniture they bought at Wal-Mart. Come to think of it, Wal-Mart has a lot of money so they should reimburse everyone who lost personal items that were purchased @ Wal-Mart since those poor folks need to rebuild their lives. After all Wal-Mart has been selling stuff for all these years and lining their pockets so now they should have to give some back.

    My sarcasm is not meant to be mean. I just want to show that the Insurance Industry hears this kind of stuff all the time! Everything should revolve around what is right. This isn’t that complex. There are, however, complex issues.We should be examining a way to allow insurors to pass thru flood under a HO policy since most flood claims are for people that are nit in a flood zone at all! The fact is that FEMA will end up paying billions under the category of aid forthe uninsured. Perhaps we need to figure out ways to minimize the uninsured. Not sure what the answer is, but telling people not to worry, we’ll make Insurors sell you a policy AFTER you have a claim will encourage people to not buy coverage until after a claim.

  • September 20, 2005 at 1:01 am
    compman says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. Taylor is a complete idiot. First he tries extortion, then he asks for retroactive policies. Gee, I wonder how many other policyholders in ALL states would like that option? He does not even understand the meaning of insurance. What a complete putz!!!!

  • September 20, 2005 at 1:52 am
    Chris says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wasn’t aware that any insurance companies were asking the Federal Gov’t for a bailout. Did I miss that one?

    But, if they are, where is the logic in telling the carriers they will get a bailout from the claims they do owe, but only if they will pay additional claims that they don’t owe? The uninsured claim amounts will probably far exceed the insured ones.

    In other words, is Mr. Taylor agreeing to government funded carrier bailouts, but only if the carriers will make the cost of the bailout bigger than it already is? As with Mr. Hood, Mr. Taylor must be another fine example of the Mississippi public school system.

    And, where is the bailout money to come from? Why, the taxpayers, who already subsidize the NFIP premiums so that they are at least marginally affordable. Certainly not from the pork…I mean “earmarks”, of both parties that have been loaded onto all of the recent legislation passed by Congress.

  • September 20, 2005 at 2:42 am
    fed up agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Can you say “Pigs at the Trough”?

    Don’t ya just love that visual???

  • September 20, 2005 at 3:02 am
    tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hmmm – is the Mississippi lawsuit trying to enjoin insurers from using the so-called flood exclusion, or to force them to pay claims. This may seem like a semantic difference, but I think the net result will be to bring the claims process to a screeching halt – for the next five years as this works its way through the legal system. As someone said, a great example of the Mississippi school system.

  • September 20, 2005 at 3:02 am
    Crusty Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So the question is this: Do we hold the populace of Mr. Taylor’s area responsible for electing this mope?
    Hat’s off to another glaring example of why people should not be allowed to vote, period.

  • September 20, 2005 at 3:31 am
    Curt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is a great idea. It should apply to regular HO as well. Just think how much money you can save. You buy the insurnace AFTER the house burns down.

    Who votes for these idiots?

  • September 20, 2005 at 3:59 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with Curt. But, let’s look at this from an economical standpoint. I can pay a relatively low premium now in return for a total loss to my house. Let me think about it! Let’s make it one better, I’ll pay the premium for retro flood coverage after you settle my claim. I don’t have the money now because everything was lost in the hurricane, and I no longer have a job, house, car, etc.

    well, duh!

  • September 20, 2005 at 4:08 am
    cmc,jr says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hey! Looks like this may be another opportunity for Marsh, AON, AIG, and the boys (& girls) to do some REAL bid-rigging. Maybe Spitzer (because he knows so much about insurance now) can put some of his best insurance plea bargains on work release and send them down to Mississippi and Louisiana to do some commmunity service on those retro flood policies. Transparency will be difficult since the water is a little muddy down there but they can probably guarantee no commisions and no contingents. If only Greenberg was still in power;all those policies would probably assure him of no hard time restore a little bit of the our industry name.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*