Re: OT Republicans

El Guapo wrote:
"Deadmeat" <noone@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:m7qdnaUSzJ_zMHPanZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Polarhound wrote:
Deadmeat wrote:
Polarhound wrote:
The Undertaker wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:32:49 -0400, Polarhound
<n0spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Paige Matthews wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:51:03 -0400, "El Guapo" <plethora@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<replyonusenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ggpqu3dkrs1s7lvsth9dhekl2lgjpalj5q@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:58:14 -0400, "El Guapo" <plethora@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Insurance companies charge consumers with premiums that go up and up,
yet expect the government to cover their losses when they get hit --
as we saw in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
We saw how ethical the insurance companies were in Katrina.
John Doe has his house destroyed by Katrina. The insurance
company refuses to pay the damage from wind. Meanwhile
the guy next door has his house destroyed by Katrina. The
same insurance company again refuses to pay. The cite water
damage as the reason. Same storm, same street, houses right
next to each other. Insurance is legalized theft by corporations.
What company refused to pay for wind damage?
My understanding is a whole bunch of them did.
Come back when you have specifics. As allegedly common as you make it out to be, you should have no problem with this.
Want to find a great example of this? Google a certain former
congressman from Mississippi whose house was destroyed by Katrina
and is suing.
You can't even come up with simple specifics like a name, the insurance company allegedly involved, or whether said person had flood insurance.


Are you an insurance salesman?

She was referring to Trent Lott, BTW.
This would be the same Trent Lott that REFUSED a flood settlement in March of 2007. Lott's claimed that the house was destroyed by wind, yet he filed a FLOOD claim under a FEDERAL PROGRAM. Translation: He didn't have his own flood insurance, and wanted taxpayers to pick up the tab.

In his OWN complaint, found at:

http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/Lott%20amended%20complaint.pdf

Lott claims the home had already been destroyed or substantially damaged by wind. He then attempts to double-dip by collecting on both his regular insurance AND the GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.

Thanks for helping me prove my point!

I did help you prove anything. I just added what the original poster was referring too.

I didn't know about the double dipping part.

In this article http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110009706

the writer presumes he collected on his flood insurance. Now I'm just asking, do you know if he did collect? For now, I'll assume that he did.

It will be interesting to see how he thinks he deserves to collect on both.

All of this still doesn't make State Farm right in denying a claim for wind damages, however. Their claim that 140 mph winds had nothing to do with the damage and that only the flooding that occurred after was responsible is complete bull***. I live in S. Florida, and Andrew, with approximately the same wind strength, practically destroyed an entire city, with no storm surge damage.

I was in Ft. Lauderdale when Andrew hit, and drove down to Cutler Ridge two days later. Andrew was a category 5 (>156 mph sustained winds), Katrina was only a category 3 (111-130 mph sustained winds) when it hit. HUGE difference. A category 3 hurricane will cause substantial wind damage, but nothing like the catastrophic damage in much of New Orleans. The vast majority of damage in New Orleans was caused by flood damage after the hurricane. Which was very unfortunate, because the flooding killed a lot of people, and if I recall correctly, about 3/4 of homeowners didn't have flood insurance.

A lot of the contested claims in LA & MO were over whether or not the insurance companies should cover damage caused directly by the storm surge.


Andrew was a small powerful storm. Katrina, although less intense when it reached landfall, was huge, and pounded those areas for a longer period of time.

There is no doubt as to what caused the majority of the damage in LA and MO. The fact that NO is basically in a soup bowl didn't help.

But for insurance companies to say that wind had nothing to do the damage is nuts. They would probably be saying the same thing if Katrina had hit at 175.


.

Loading