Jeff, the clause you are referring to is the concurrent causation clause. I agree with others who indicate some people are going to try and collect twice. It is pretty simple to understand that a homeowner’s policy does not cover flood and is not priced for it. If it did cover flood the cost would probably double or triple. I am not necessarily advocating people up on a hill should have to buy flood but insurance companies know where the risk exists especially in coastal states but also in areas near creeks and rivers. If they force people to buy a flood policy they take the coverage gap out of the picture and greatly reduce their risk of lawsuits. I believe if everyone in a coastal state or flood zone were forced to buy the coverage the price would probably come down since FEMA would have a huge influx of money. If you want to live there, than pay the cost. Last I checked this is a free country and you can live wherever you want. If you choose to live in a coastal area or near a river creek than you better be willing to pay the cost. It’s no different then allowing you 16-year-old son to drive your vehicle. You better be willing to pay the higher auto premiums due to the higher risk. If companies are allowed to price appropriately for the risk and not forced to have their policy reinterpreted after the fact, there would not be a problem of companies wanting to leave high-risk areas. Flood is just not covered by regular policies. I used to be a property adjuster and one thing a lot of you are not getting is that the concurrent causation clause takes away water damage caused by wind but if you go to coverage A & B you will note that direct physical loss is covered and wind is not excluded. Coverage C named peril for windstorm/hail includes water damage from rain if there is an opening created. If you have a home with water damage inside but no opening I would bet you have flood damage. If the companies did not overwork their adjusters it would not be that hard for the flood adjuster, homeowner adjuster, contractor, and possibly even an engineer (for difficult claims) to put their heads together and decide who is paying what. If you have both policies the equation should equal 100% indemnification. A company unwilling to do this is not one I would recommend placing my trust in. Their policy should be priced to cover wind and they should pay the losses they owe. Appears they have been a little sloppy in this regard. Melanie, get a clue. Playing stupid after the fact does not mean you should collect. I seriously doubt your agent told you the policy covers hurricane, which includes storm surge/flood/wind driven flood. All agents know you need a flood policy for that coverage. It is a classic case of I did not want to pay for it when it was offered but now that I have damage I see my policy covers hurricane and I will interpret that to mean whatever I would like it to not what the policy actually says. I bet 90% or better of these people were told this by their agent but did not want to pay the extra cost of the flood policy. It really is a matter of people wanting something for nothing.
The insurance industry is the ONLY industry Exempt from the laws intended to protect consumers. So we have to pass A BILL for enforcement. Please Think about this. Who has your back. Yes your know it. So Wake up and see the RAT!!! Melanie
SF got a billion dollar judgement? So what? Companies get sued and pay fines all the time. State Farm is certainly not unique in that respect.
Yes, they\’re trying to make a profit. Their whole existence is about money. I already admitted that.
We\’re next? Next for what? Next for our state government to act like total jack-asses and drive companies from the state?
If you think that big corporations are so evil then live in a society that disallows them. Like China, or Russia.
That isn\’t a \”don\’t like it, move\” rant. That\’s a simple statement that the wealthiest societies have generally supported free markets.
Even the \”victims\” of State Farm have a better standard of living than 99% of the populace of communist Russia and China.
I understand you view yourself as an activist, but against what?
Corporations? Free enterprise? Sound fiscal policy? We, as a nation, are wealthier than any society has ever been in an absolute sense. And although we lag behind other societies (past and present) on a per-capita basis we still do a great job of apportioning wealth.
I\’m sorry if you feel that you\’ve been cheated out of your portion, but tryin to cheat someone else out of theirs isn\’t the answer.
I agree that businesses are about making money / profit. And I certainly don\’t believe that we should re-interupt contracts after the fact. But, if SF did in fact not pay when they should have, they should be sued and have to pay. I understand not wanting to write business in a state with a legal system that is not condusive to giving you a fair shake in court, but we can\’t just allow companies to run rough-shot over the consumers.
Don\’t get me wrong. I don\’t think we should penalize SF just because they have deep pockets, but we certainly shouldn\’t get behind them just because they\’re getting sued a lot. Although I\’m sure there are many claimants that don\’t deserve a dime, it sounds like there are many that do. I just think we shouldn\’t be too quick to assume that all these lawsuits are without merit.
A profit yes ,but on who,s back and pain. Justification the unjustifiable things and to call it justice. Good Faith a better way. Every thousand .. mile journey begins with the frist step toward justice. Melanie
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.
You have no clue. Look at History. all of this country. You May be Next, I hope not it,s HELL. Melanie
Like I predicted, the screaming started.
IT,s About …TIME TO STAND!!!
Jeff, the clause you are referring to is the concurrent causation clause. I agree with others who indicate some people are going to try and collect twice. It is pretty simple to understand that a homeowner’s policy does not cover flood and is not priced for it. If it did cover flood the cost would probably double or triple. I am not necessarily advocating people up on a hill should have to buy flood but insurance companies know where the risk exists especially in coastal states but also in areas near creeks and rivers. If they force people to buy a flood policy they take the coverage gap out of the picture and greatly reduce their risk of lawsuits. I believe if everyone in a coastal state or flood zone were forced to buy the coverage the price would probably come down since FEMA would have a huge influx of money. If you want to live there, than pay the cost. Last I checked this is a free country and you can live wherever you want. If you choose to live in a coastal area or near a river creek than you better be willing to pay the cost. It’s no different then allowing you 16-year-old son to drive your vehicle. You better be willing to pay the higher auto premiums due to the higher risk. If companies are allowed to price appropriately for the risk and not forced to have their policy reinterpreted after the fact, there would not be a problem of companies wanting to leave high-risk areas. Flood is just not covered by regular policies. I used to be a property adjuster and one thing a lot of you are not getting is that the concurrent causation clause takes away water damage caused by wind but if you go to coverage A & B you will note that direct physical loss is covered and wind is not excluded. Coverage C named peril for windstorm/hail includes water damage from rain if there is an opening created. If you have a home with water damage inside but no opening I would bet you have flood damage. If the companies did not overwork their adjusters it would not be that hard for the flood adjuster, homeowner adjuster, contractor, and possibly even an engineer (for difficult claims) to put their heads together and decide who is paying what. If you have both policies the equation should equal 100% indemnification. A company unwilling to do this is not one I would recommend placing my trust in. Their policy should be priced to cover wind and they should pay the losses they owe. Appears they have been a little sloppy in this regard. Melanie, get a clue. Playing stupid after the fact does not mean you should collect. I seriously doubt your agent told you the policy covers hurricane, which includes storm surge/flood/wind driven flood. All agents know you need a flood policy for that coverage. It is a classic case of I did not want to pay for it when it was offered but now that I have damage I see my policy covers hurricane and I will interpret that to mean whatever I would like it to not what the policy actually says. I bet 90% or better of these people were told this by their agent but did not want to pay the extra cost of the flood policy. It really is a matter of people wanting something for nothing.
The insurance industry is the ONLY industry Exempt from the laws intended to protect consumers. So we have to pass A BILL for enforcement. Please Think about this. Who has your back. Yes your know it. So Wake up and see the RAT!!! Melanie
Ralph a clue for you 1000 miles away from water. Melanie
SF got a billion dollar judgement? So what? Companies get sued and pay fines all the time. State Farm is certainly not unique in that respect.
Yes, they\’re trying to make a profit. Their whole existence is about money. I already admitted that.
We\’re next? Next for what? Next for our state government to act like total jack-asses and drive companies from the state?
If you think that big corporations are so evil then live in a society that disallows them. Like China, or Russia.
That isn\’t a \”don\’t like it, move\” rant. That\’s a simple statement that the wealthiest societies have generally supported free markets.
Even the \”victims\” of State Farm have a better standard of living than 99% of the populace of communist Russia and China.
I understand you view yourself as an activist, but against what?
Corporations? Free enterprise? Sound fiscal policy? We, as a nation, are wealthier than any society has ever been in an absolute sense. And although we lag behind other societies (past and present) on a per-capita basis we still do a great job of apportioning wealth.
I\’m sorry if you feel that you\’ve been cheated out of your portion, but tryin to cheat someone else out of theirs isn\’t the answer.
I keep forgetting to ask melanie- if these firms are inherently evil, why are Blanco\’s panties in a bunch over the thought of them leaving?
Mjolnir,
I agree that businesses are about making money / profit. And I certainly don\’t believe that we should re-interupt contracts after the fact. But, if SF did in fact not pay when they should have, they should be sued and have to pay. I understand not wanting to write business in a state with a legal system that is not condusive to giving you a fair shake in court, but we can\’t just allow companies to run rough-shot over the consumers.
Don\’t get me wrong. I don\’t think we should penalize SF just because they have deep pockets, but we certainly shouldn\’t get behind them just because they\’re getting sued a lot. Although I\’m sure there are many claimants that don\’t deserve a dime, it sounds like there are many that do. I just think we shouldn\’t be too quick to assume that all these lawsuits are without merit.
A profit yes ,but on who,s back and pain. Justification the unjustifiable things and to call it justice. Good Faith a better way. Every thousand .. mile journey begins with the frist step toward justice. Melanie