Re: Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- From: "Starbuck's" <coffee,grinder@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 11:54:15 -0400
Chuck,
The insurance company is not paying for flood damage?
Do you think this surprises anyone who lives in a flood plain? I have seen
ads on TV for over 20 years talking about Flood Insurance, and the reason it
is important. The ads emphasize, "If you home is damaged by a flood, you
are not insured, if you want to be insured against a flood, you must buy
flood insurance. Since I have never lived in a flood plain, I would assume
those who do live in flood plains were aware their insurance would not pay
for damaged due to floods, so they and you should not be surprised by the
insurance companies response. Everytime I renew my homeowners insurance,
the company highlights that my insurance does not pay for flood damage.
I do know that all lenders insist that any loans given to an individuals who
lives in a flood plain, include Flood Insurance.
I am devastated by the suffering of those who are flooded out of their home,
but we should not chastise the insurance companies for not paying insurance
claims to people who are not insured. That would be as silly as chastising
an insurance company for not paying a auto owner's claim for Comprehensive
Coverage, when he only paid for Liability Coverage.
<chuckgould.chuck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1126279335.396177.120460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> *JimH* wrote:
>> Folks who want to live in hurricane hot spots understand the exposures.
>> If
>> rebuilding is done in hurricane prone areas let the owners be self
>> insured
>> and limit government funding to only search and rescue.
>>
>> A cold viewpoint? Yep. But I am tired of paying for the damage done by
>> hurricanes along coastal areas, both in my taxes and my insurance
>> premiums.
>>
>>
>
>
> Early reports indicate that many insurance companies are denying
> coverage across the board to anybody who has a house underwater and who
> does not specifically have flood insurance. Even though most policies
> would cover "wind damage" associated with a major storm, the adjusters
> are so far telling people that the flood was a different hazard and
> they aren't covered.
>
> So, in effect, a lot of the victims of this thing will turn out to be
> self insured (financially ruined) in the end. No tax dollars and no
> insurance company losses involved, in many cases.
>
>
>> "Butch Davis" <butch1277@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:gJfUe.9305$_84.4734@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Interesting that 54% of Americans polled say don't rebuild the flooded
>> > parts of NO below sea level.
>> >
>> > That makes good fiscal sense and good safety sense. Regardless of who
>> > is
>> > or is not to blame for the progress of the life saving efforts in NO, I
>> > believe everyone can agree that the effort was made incredibly more
>> > difficult by the flooding. If NO had been affected by wind rather than
>> > by
>> > flood the rescue efforts would have been vastly simplified.
>> >
>> > I agree with the majority of Americans. Lets save the Quarter and the
>> > hotels necessary to support the Quarter's tourist industry, but lets
>> > not
>> > perpetuate the gross mistake of building a major city below sea level.
>> > It
>> > would be unsafe and a horrible waste of the people's treasure.
>> >
>> > Butch
>> >
>
.
- References:
- Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- From: Butch Davis
- Re: Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- From: *JimH*
- Re: Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- From: chuckgould . chuck
- Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- Prev by Date: Re: Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- Next by Date: Interesting reading about the price of boat fuel
- Previous by thread: Re: Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- Next by thread: Re: Don't Rebuild NO Say 54%
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
