We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by, or in combination with, any of the following.
Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
We will guarantee that you will be provided with an annual rate increase.
If you somehow mannage to slip thru any of the loopholes in the above, we will then depreciate, deduct all deductibles, pay above the water line. We will pay a percentage for damage included and then we will raise your rates more, each and every year.
Your Good Neighbors….
Suckers!
Check out State Farm\’s history of failing to disclose vehicle damage by not obtaining salvage titles which BRAND \”total loss\” vehicles for future sales. SF gets a higher price for an \”unbranded\” sale increasing its bottom line by decreasing claims expense.
Of course,unsuspecting future purchasers of these vehicles have been left holding the bag– not to mention innocent car dealers, credit unions and other financing institutions victimized by SF\’s misbranding.
See Austin American-Statesman Sunday Edition 1/28/2007.
I don\’t care if State Farm or any other carrier elects to leave or remain in Mississippi.
What matters is that all hurricane related costs be factored into future Mississippi rate requirements, and not be pawned off on those of us who reside and purchase insurance in areas not prone to catastrophic losses.
It\’s not that *all* losses need to be factored into one contract, though there would certainly be some advantages to having one contract for everything. On the other hand, nobody could afford that contract.
What will keep insurers from being scared out of the market is if they can develop language that actually excludes what they want to exclude, that is clear to the courts and the policyholders. Then they can price for what is clearly covered, and not for what is clearly excluded.
What appears to have happened here is that the companies priced their policies as if they excluded all wind damage that was concurrent with flood damage, when what their policy language clearly says is that they exclude the water damage even if it is concurrent with wind.
Perhaps, rather than waiting for insurers, ISO, etc. to develop another poorly-worded exclusion that leads to another case like this, the states in question should legislate specific, clearly-worded exclusions, with statutory definitions of what is excluded under each exclusion, so that insurance companies won\’t be caught off guard when courts hold them to their contracts?
FEMA CAN PAY FOR ALL NATURAL DISASTER
WITHOUT EXCLUSIONS OR LOOP HOLES.
Instead of just paying FEMA for Flood,
We can pay a little more to buy financial protection for the American People.
IF AMERICA CAN PAY $2 Billion/week for Iraq…….
The American People should be able to
BUY an Insurance Policy that would provide Financial Protection in the event of any Natural Disaster.
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.
We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by, or in combination with, any of the following.
Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
We will guarantee that you will be provided with an annual rate increase.
If you somehow mannage to slip thru any of the loopholes in the above, we will then depreciate, deduct all deductibles, pay above the water line. We will pay a percentage for damage included and then we will raise your rates more, each and every year.
Your Good Neighbors….
Suckers!
Excuse Me…
We had The worst disaster in American
History.
Our Policy was not worth the paper it was written on.
Wake Up America….READ !!!! No Benefits.
State Farm Denial of Claims Could Scare
Insured fm Buying/Residing in MS Market
The Same Policy Applies to USA Homeowners.
Read your policy and you will find that you have a policy without protection!
Check out State Farm\’s history of failing to disclose vehicle damage by not obtaining salvage titles which BRAND \”total loss\” vehicles for future sales. SF gets a higher price for an \”unbranded\” sale increasing its bottom line by decreasing claims expense.
Of course,unsuspecting future purchasers of these vehicles have been left holding the bag– not to mention innocent car dealers, credit unions and other financing institutions victimized by SF\’s misbranding.
See Austin American-Statesman Sunday Edition 1/28/2007.
It\’s George W. Bush\’s fault for not acknowledging man made global warming and for becoming too aggressive in the war on terror.
No, it\’s George W. Bush\’s fault for blowing up the dikes in New Orleans.
I don\’t care if State Farm or any other carrier elects to leave or remain in Mississippi.
What matters is that all hurricane related costs be factored into future Mississippi rate requirements, and not be pawned off on those of us who reside and purchase insurance in areas not prone to catastrophic losses.
I suggest that FEMA can sell one policy that will include any and all damage
resulting from any Natural Disaster, without exclusion.
Wind, Water, Hail, Sleet, Snow, Rain,
Flood, Surge, Collapse, Mold, Termites,
Structural Damage.
The city/State should rebuild for you,
That would stop contractor fraud in a disaster area.
If I get ripped off one more time,
I might create a contractor cemetary.
It\’s not that *all* losses need to be factored into one contract, though there would certainly be some advantages to having one contract for everything. On the other hand, nobody could afford that contract.
What will keep insurers from being scared out of the market is if they can develop language that actually excludes what they want to exclude, that is clear to the courts and the policyholders. Then they can price for what is clearly covered, and not for what is clearly excluded.
What appears to have happened here is that the companies priced their policies as if they excluded all wind damage that was concurrent with flood damage, when what their policy language clearly says is that they exclude the water damage even if it is concurrent with wind.
Perhaps, rather than waiting for insurers, ISO, etc. to develop another poorly-worded exclusion that leads to another case like this, the states in question should legislate specific, clearly-worded exclusions, with statutory definitions of what is excluded under each exclusion, so that insurance companies won\’t be caught off guard when courts hold them to their contracts?
Claims handling has become a \”profit center\” read:
http://www.unitedpolicyholders.org/pdfs/WhitePaper_report.pdf
http://www.marrlawfirm.com/files/Haines%20Emails.pdf
FEMA CAN PAY FOR ALL NATURAL DISASTER
WITHOUT EXCLUSIONS OR LOOP HOLES.
Instead of just paying FEMA for Flood,
We can pay a little more to buy financial protection for the American People.
IF AMERICA CAN PAY $2 Billion/week for Iraq…….
The American People should be able to
BUY an Insurance Policy that would provide Financial Protection in the event of any Natural Disaster.
Give me a break!
This is America. The People 1st !
NO IF, ANDS OR BUT\’S ABOUT IT!