State Farm no one needs to hear from you . History over and over . I know your pay . You Can find a new job. Its okay to be mad, but be mad at State Farm not me. Money is not the only thing. Care for others. I Hope you have a great Day. Melanie
This really isn\’t a surprise to me. Why would State Farm or any other carrier for that matter want to invest in an area where there is so little opportunity to make a profit?
The politicians can\’t be so stupid that they did not know it was coming. In fact, some politicians may have wanted it to occur. It creates a new boogeyman that they can blame for the woes of the state.
State Farm paid a lot of claims. The problem is that they failed to make the argument as to what caused the damage. Rising water, no problem, its flood insurance. But storm surge is not the same. Had they stepped in and attempted to pay something and help get those back on their feet, they wouldn\’t be in the mess they are now. They were hoping the claims would go away. They are natorious for that.
By the way, I am in Florida and written with State Farm in a coastal county. I am not in a flood zone, but you can bet your a?? I have flood insurance.
I hope they stay in Florida
However, were you aware that corporations are formed with the express purpose of making a profit? Their whole reason for existence is to \”make\” money.
Do you really expect a large corporation to continue doing business at a loss?
Were you aware that State Farm paid the vast majority of claims?
I\’ve said it before, and I\’m sure I\’ll say it again: If you don\’t like how they\’re doing business, start your own firm. Raise the capital and then pay out on billions (B) of dollars worth of losses without expecting customers to follow their half of the contract. You can find out for yourself how long you\’ll be in a position to \”help\” people who signed a contract without reading it.
You apparently want someone else to take care of you without any sort of responsibility on your part. You want to punish those of us who pay for appropriate coverage because you\’re too lazy or too stupid to understand how the world works.
Miss. has opened Pandora\’s box by over ruling contract law. The effect of their decision will be broader than State Farm leaving in the long run. State Farm\’s decision (or any company for that matter) to get out of a state where a contract is subjective sounds reasonable to me…
Was the damage by wind or flood….it is really that simple….State Farm failed to provide the evidence that the damage was from rising water….These folks sustained damage that was both wind and flood damage and State Farm denied the whole claim instead of adjusting for wind or flood and stated that the whole claim should be flood. This is not rewriting the insurance contract.
Here is a standard Flood exclusion… As a reasonable and prudent individual, is there coverage?
\”We will not pay for physical loss resulting directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such physical loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the physical loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the physical loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind\”
The only reason people are gripping is that they were too cheap to buy flood insurance…
SF has insured 29,000 home in 2006 in MI. I would assume that most of the houses they had on the coast were totaled and now claims paid. So thier coastal exposer is reduced. I think SF stays in MI they just don\’t want to write new biz on the coast. Good decision. They keep there 30% of the market.
I agree with DDT that the real issue here is what the contract states. And I consider myself a reasonable and prudent individual. The standard Flood exclusion he quotes starts from the point that the company will NOT pay for a loss resulting directly or indirectly from Flood, whether or not driven by wind. If a home was already a constructive total loss for a covered cause (let us presume it was a FIRE, rather than wind) and then a Flood comes and washes away the charred remains would you reasonably believe there was no coverage?
Concurrent or sequential contribution means that the two causes have to be acting to reinforce each other in some way. If a windstorm blows out the first floor windows and doors of a home but does not render it uninhabitable and then flood waters render the house a total loss, none of the loss is covered – even the cost of the carpets that were ruined before the flood came.
Broad generalizations about people or government motives being to rewrite contracts, steal from deep pockets, or save premium dollars are no more accurate than those that claim that companies want to make profits in good weather years and abandon markets or cheat insureds when they are required to pay losses.
The truth is more gray, my friends. Most insureds and most companies are honest most of the time. But the exceptions and the errors can be devastating. That is why we need objective judges to weigh the situation and render a verdict based on evidence. And we should not sloganeer against them if they do not decide in our favor. How about a little calm reflection?
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.
State Farm no one needs to hear from you . History over and over . I know your pay . You Can find a new job. Its okay to be mad, but be mad at State Farm not me. Money is not the only thing. Care for others. I Hope you have a great Day. Melanie
This really isn\’t a surprise to me. Why would State Farm or any other carrier for that matter want to invest in an area where there is so little opportunity to make a profit?
The politicians can\’t be so stupid that they did not know it was coming. In fact, some politicians may have wanted it to occur. It creates a new boogeyman that they can blame for the woes of the state.
Mr Rust . Just Stop.
State Farm paid a lot of claims. The problem is that they failed to make the argument as to what caused the damage. Rising water, no problem, its flood insurance. But storm surge is not the same. Had they stepped in and attempted to pay something and help get those back on their feet, they wouldn\’t be in the mess they are now. They were hoping the claims would go away. They are natorious for that.
By the way, I am in Florida and written with State Farm in a coastal county. I am not in a flood zone, but you can bet your a?? I have flood insurance.
I hope they stay in Florida
…not to you, or to me.
However, were you aware that corporations are formed with the express purpose of making a profit? Their whole reason for existence is to \”make\” money.
Do you really expect a large corporation to continue doing business at a loss?
Were you aware that State Farm paid the vast majority of claims?
I\’ve said it before, and I\’m sure I\’ll say it again: If you don\’t like how they\’re doing business, start your own firm. Raise the capital and then pay out on billions (B) of dollars worth of losses without expecting customers to follow their half of the contract. You can find out for yourself how long you\’ll be in a position to \”help\” people who signed a contract without reading it.
You apparently want someone else to take care of you without any sort of responsibility on your part. You want to punish those of us who pay for appropriate coverage because you\’re too lazy or too stupid to understand how the world works.
Miss. has opened Pandora\’s box by over ruling contract law. The effect of their decision will be broader than State Farm leaving in the long run. State Farm\’s decision (or any company for that matter) to get out of a state where a contract is subjective sounds reasonable to me…
Was the damage by wind or flood….it is really that simple….State Farm failed to provide the evidence that the damage was from rising water….These folks sustained damage that was both wind and flood damage and State Farm denied the whole claim instead of adjusting for wind or flood and stated that the whole claim should be flood. This is not rewriting the insurance contract.
Here is a standard Flood exclusion… As a reasonable and prudent individual, is there coverage?
\”We will not pay for physical loss resulting directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such physical loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the physical loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the physical loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind\”
The only reason people are gripping is that they were too cheap to buy flood insurance…
SF has insured 29,000 home in 2006 in MI. I would assume that most of the houses they had on the coast were totaled and now claims paid. So thier coastal exposer is reduced. I think SF stays in MI they just don\’t want to write new biz on the coast. Good decision. They keep there 30% of the market.
I agree with DDT that the real issue here is what the contract states. And I consider myself a reasonable and prudent individual. The standard Flood exclusion he quotes starts from the point that the company will NOT pay for a loss resulting directly or indirectly from Flood, whether or not driven by wind. If a home was already a constructive total loss for a covered cause (let us presume it was a FIRE, rather than wind) and then a Flood comes and washes away the charred remains would you reasonably believe there was no coverage?
Concurrent or sequential contribution means that the two causes have to be acting to reinforce each other in some way. If a windstorm blows out the first floor windows and doors of a home but does not render it uninhabitable and then flood waters render the house a total loss, none of the loss is covered – even the cost of the carpets that were ruined before the flood came.
Broad generalizations about people or government motives being to rewrite contracts, steal from deep pockets, or save premium dollars are no more accurate than those that claim that companies want to make profits in good weather years and abandon markets or cheat insureds when they are required to pay losses.
The truth is more gray, my friends. Most insureds and most companies are honest most of the time. But the exceptions and the errors can be devastating. That is why we need objective judges to weigh the situation and render a verdict based on evidence. And we should not sloganeer against them if they do not decide in our favor. How about a little calm reflection?