BAY ST. LOUIS, Miss. -- First came Katrina to wipe out their homes, then came the insurance adjusters to deliver the really bad news.
Because most of the damage in Bay St. Louis and Waveland was caused by storm surge and flooding, the vast majority of homeowners and many business owners are being told they were uninsured or underinsured for their losses.
While homeowners insurance pays for wind damage caused by hurricanes, including damage from rain that comes in through broken windows and roofs, major carriers are unanimously refusing to pay for destruction caused by the massive wall of water that inundated the Mississippi coast and wrecked thousands of homes.
Only flood insurance offered by the federal government is covering the water damage, and few homeowners had it -- because few thought they needed it.
Since Katrina swept through the Gulf Coast Aug. 29, the multibillion-dollar issue of wind vs. water damage has been a topic of intense discussion from the Bay-Waveland area to Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are trying several strategies to save homes from foreclosure and speed the rebuilding process.
They hope to act in time to help people like Waveland resident Honey Spoon, 28, a single mother who closed in May on her first home only to have it destroyed three months later by Katrina. The manager of a popular Mexican restaurant in Bay St. Louis, she worked for years to improve her credit enough to buy a charming 1920s bungalow on 1.2 acres for $122,000.
Her mortgage company has suspended late fees for at least six months on her $850 monthly payments, but she is not sure what she will do when the grace period ends and already is talking about bankruptcy.
"I just want my house," said Spoon, who now lives behind the restaurant in a FEMA-issued trailer with her adorable 8-year old daughter. "I don't want handouts. I work to make an honest living. But I don't know what's going to happen."
Retired Marine Master Sgt. Pete Benvenutti, 80, had paid off the mortgage on his wrecked 107-year-old home in Bay St. Louis and is trying to figure out how to afford the $200,000 it will take to rebuild when he got only $50,000 from his insurance company.
"At 80 years old I'm not looking forward to a 30-year mortgage," Pete said.
Pat Murphy, a Waveland window salesman who leads a seven-piece jazz and blues band, can repair his storm-gutted home but likely will need $100,000 and a new mortgage when he was only a few years away from paying off the old one.
“I’ll be 57 in February,” he said. “This is not where I anticipated I would be at 57 years old. This is something everybody is going through.”
They and thousands of others are discovering that if they thought they had “hurricane insurance,” they were sadly mistaken.
“There is no ambiguity whatsoever -- I don’t know if I can make the statement any clearer than that,” said Bob Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group. “It was common knowledge on the Gulf Coast … that flood is not covered, has not been covered and never will be covered under a homeowners’ policy.”
Many local residents and political leaders argue that Katrina’s enormous storm surge does not fit the usual layman’s definition of a flood.
“They are using the fine print in people’s policies to take financial advantage of them,” U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor, a Democrat from Bay St. Louis, said in an interview.
“A 30-foot wall of water that is pushed in by a hurricane is, I think, the flimsiest of excuses that those people could ever find for not paying on those claims,” said Taylor. “It was not a flood. It was a hurricane caused by wind, and they ought to pay.”
Hartwig argues that the language is clear and unambiguous. The standard homeowners policy approved by regulators in every state excludes any “loss caused by, resulting from, contributed to or aggravated by flood, surface water, waves, tidal water or overflow of any body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind," according to sample language provided by the trade group.
Nevertheless state Attorney General Jim Hood has filed suit against State Farm, Allstate, Mississippi Farm Bureau and other carriers, trying to force them to pay up for damage from Katrina. He argues that homeowners bought their insurance “for the primary purpose of insuring against any damage that could possibly result from hurricanes originating in the Gulf of Mexico.”
In a civil complaint filed in September in state chancery court, he argues that the flood exclusions are ambiguous, unenforceable and “procedurally unconscionable.”
An industry trade group responded that the attempt to “retroactively rewrite policies” would, if successful, “destroy the viability of every insurance policy in the state and undermine the integrity of every legal contract in the nation.” The industry is trying to move the case into federal court.
Private attorneys led by Richard Scruggs, who lost his own Pascagoula home to the storm, also have filed suit, trying to force insurance companies to pay. Other attorneys are taking a different tack, trying to negotiate by bringing in engineers to show that homes were damaged or destroyed by Katrina’s winds before the storm surged finished them off.
Taylor has introduced a bill that would essentially allow people in the affected area to buy flood insurance retroactively, giving them coverage nearly up to the amount of their homeowners insurance if they agree to keep the property insured for flood in the future.
Officials of the National Flood Insurance Program are strongly opposed, saying it would discourage homeowners nationwide from buying flood insurance.
But Taylor said he is optimistic that Congress will act on his bill or similar proposals intended to bring direct relief to homeowners who carried insurance, lived outside the so-called “flood plain” and are being denied coverage by their carriers.
“I see this as the real make-it-or-break-it issue -- whether or not I can help these people hang on to the homes and have something there to rebuild their lives,” he said.
Flood insurance is surprisingly cheap (as low as $233 for $100,000 in coverage), but even many insurance agents acknowledge there is widespread confusion about it. In the New Orleans area, some 60 percent of homeowners had flood insurance because they lived in a known flood hazard zone.
But in Bay St. Louis and Waveland the situation was different. Only about 15 percent of southern Mississippi homeowners had flood insurance because lenders only required it in the “special flood hazard area,” generally for those homes closest to the Gulf or in low-lying areas.
The flood hazard area is determined by FEMA, which oversees the flood insurance program and issues maps describing the so-called 100-year floodplain and other hazards that determine whether lenders will require flood insurance.
People on higher ground were not required to have flood insurance and generally did not, reasoning that they did not need it because their house stayed dry during Hurricane Camille in 1969, which made a direct hit on Bay St. Louis and until now was the benchmark for the area.
Business and homeowners commonly describe their status outside the federal special hazard area by saying they lived in a “no flood” zone. Many say they were told by their insurance agent that they did not need flood insurance.
“A number of insured are very confused about all this,” said Dave Treutel Jr., a prominent Bay St. Louis insurance agent. “My philosophy has always been, if you are in the three coastal counties, you are in a flood zone.”
Yet he did not carry flood insurance on his Old Town office building, which took on six feet of water.
Why not? “Because in the 300 years since d’Iberville and de Bienville landed, there has never been water on that bluff,” he said, echoing a sentiment heard frequently in an area still reeling from what one resident called “a 1,500-year storm.”
Murphy, the Waveland band leader, is a fifth-generation Hancock County resident who calls himself “about as local as you can get.”
He has known his insurance agent since they attended St. Stanislaus High School together some 40 years ago. He has been doing business with the agent, whom he declined to identify, for 25 years and still considers him a friend, although “there are things that need to be said. There was miscommunication.”
Just last year he met with the agent and bumped up the coverage on his 2,750-square-foot structure to $225,000 plus $70,000 for the contents. His insurance company has offered him $16,000 for roof damage and additional living expenses.
Some people are not quite certain whom to blame or what to do. Taylor and others say the federal flood maps were partly culpable because they vastly underestimated the potential flood zone. New advisory flood maps published by FEMA after Katrina would put thousands more homes in the special hazard area, meaning that lenders will require flood insurance in the future.
“The insurance agents are not the bad guy in this thing,” said Pete Benvenutti’s son Chuck, an accountant and local civic leader. “I’m not sure there is a bad guy.”
He and others say they are just hoping for the type of aid that was extended to victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or previous disasters like flooding in the Midwest and California earthquakes.
“Maybe we don’t need to blame anybody,” Chuck Benvenutti said. “Maybe we need to say, 'Guys, we in south Mississippi need a hand. We need some help from our family in the rest of the nation.' Otherwise we will allow thousands and thousands of homes to go into foreclosure. We are not talking recession, we are talking depression.”
What's in YOUR man purse?
EMAIL THIS
TRACKBACKS
Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do no appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d8349fc84d69e2
advertisement
So sorry for you all, I also live on the coast but several miles inland and the first thing I learned when I moved there was to buy the flood insurance in Dec of every year and that home owerner insurance would not pay for water damage. It cost me $737.00 a year for floor insurance plus another $150.00 for house insurance. People that lived that close to the water made a poor decision not to have flood insurance, it is offered every year.
JFK , Port O Connor, Tx (Sent Nov 25, 2005 8:32:33 PM)
i live on the coast in florida and am required to carry flood insurance,mine costs a fortune ,but its still cheaper then loosing a house ,anyone who thinks they can retroact this has to be slightly insane.you would be putting a hit on insurance companies,and guess what happens next?my rates have gone up 35%since charly ,heck there wasn't but a very small 6 foot surge.lets face it if you live near the water you should be tnsured.good luvk,but dont get your hopes up.
phil,pine island florida (Sent Nov 25, 2005 8:55:35 PM)
Unfortunately, this seems to be one of those situations where no one wins, unfortunately, I have heard very little in terms of a compromise.
Though there situation is tragic, homeowners in the gulf region really should be aware of what their insurance contracts say. Insurance companies are in business to make money after all, and to expect them to pay out large sums of money because people think they should is not fair or reasonable.
That said, I cannot fathom why insurance companies, in the interest of good PR and business relationships can 't issue some form of special dispensation stating that (for example), all eligible claim payouts will be doubled or tripled up to policy maximum. No, this may not be replacement costs but would have to make a dent.
For its part, the state should set up a fast, IMPARTIAL aribitration system to help determine claim eligibility and compensation fairness.
I don't know who said this, but isn't the definition of compromise when everyone walks away just somewhat unhappy?
J Linder, Marlton, NJ (Sent Nov 25, 2005 10:03:57 PM)
Not only should these people be smart enough to have flood insurance, it amazes me the number of people that live in hurricane zones and don't have house or flood insurance at all. But the government does pay for housing for them and then they complain about how long it takes to get out of the system. If you break a law driving ignorance of the law is not a defense, the same thing should apply when it comes to house and flood insurance. I do feel badly for the majority of the victims and hope that they can get anything needed to rebuild if they so choose.
Heather Johnson, St. Clair, MI (Sent Nov 25, 2005 10:16:00 PM)
I believe insurance agents and their companies market to the public by insinuating they are there to help and "represent the best interest of their customers" when in fact that is very misleading. Insurance agents have a fiduciary duty to the company they sell for, and this fact should be disclosed at the time of introduction of intent to provide policy sales. This would encourage homeowners to do more research and rely less on an agent who does not represent them.
wendy, dallas texas (Sent Nov 26, 2005 12:37:33 AM)
It is so shocking to me that people still don't get this. You don't get something for nothing! I work for a extremely ethical insurance company. We have made it a vital point to always remind our customers about flood insurance...and that homeowner's policies do not cover it. Being a customer myself, I have been reminded no less than 10 times in 4 years.
I am sorry so many people lost so much, but the reality of the situation is so simple you can't bring yourself to see it. You should have had the appropriate coverage for the Gulf Coast. If you live in a Gulf State (which I do), you can only blame yourself for not protecting your investment.
Insurance companies can't be forced to pay billions of dollars they do not have, because hundreds of thousands of people didn't pay them premiums to be able to pay out those billions. It will only cause them to go bankrupt and hundreds of thousands of more people will be out of work.
Laura, Texas (Sent Nov 26, 2005 1:47:43 AM)
You can not have it both ways. It was common knowledge in the area that homeowner's insurance does not pay for flood damage. Now those who made a deliberate choice to go uninsured want to rewrite their contracts after the fact so the rest of us have to pay for their mistakes.
P F, Stevens Point, WI (Sent Nov 26, 2005 3:32:34 AM)
It seems to me there are two, no three, different issues. The third is addressed by the posting from JD, which I was glad to see. To my totally inexpert eye many of the first pictures from Missisippi looked like tornado damage. (The debris had a circular look.) I have been concerned that the insurance companies were ignoring that and saying all was flood damage.
The other two have to do with the type of insurance. Homeowner's insurance has never covered flood damage. You would have to live in pretty much of a vacumn not to know that. But I have seen a good deal of coverage talking about people having "hurricane" insurance. Unless there was some very LARGE print on the first page saying otherwise, any reasonable person would expect "hurricane" insurance to cover all damage from a hurricane whether caused by wind or water.
Joan Raser, Mansfield, Ohio (Sent Nov 26, 2005 5:43:02 AM)
Giving folks in Mississippi who don't have flood insurance fedral aid is one thing, and I'm for that. But lets not try to rewrite the insurance policies after the fact just because these folks did not understand them. Everyone who lives on the coast has been told for years that floods are not covered in their policy. They didn't think it would happen to them. That's the whole point of insurance to insure against the not very likely. Since it was not very likely, the flood insurance was cheap. Rewriting a contract after the disaster would set a terrible precident. It's not the insurance companies fault.
Bill Kamps, Houston, Texas (Sent Nov 26, 2005 8:01:33 AM)
Here's the thing. Anyone who lives in the southern coastal region enjoys certain benefits that the rest of us in the country don't. Warm weather, access to beaches and boating. But these luxuries come at a price: the threat of hurricaines. Everyone knows it. But the question was "what to do about it?".
Seems like many decided that "nothing" was the best answer. Maybe they decided not to get the flood insurance because they weren't required to. Getting by on "just what's required" is very popular these days. It's a theme that will play out in a very visibly in the coming years as people reach retirement age and try to live on "just what's required" - Social Security. That one will affect more than just the southern coastal regions I'm afraid, but it's the same problem. People are not saving more than the minimum and are hoping for the best. I'm sure we'll hear the same arguments: the actual amount that people were to receive was hidden in the fine print. The government should pay up because it's the right thing.
Social Security will play out in the same way as the Katrina debate with the same people weighing in on either side.
The bottom line is this: About half the country thinks the U.S. should be a "Care-Taker" society where people need to be looked after. The other half of the country thinks the U.S. should be an "Empowerment" society where people have the right to flourish and create their own prosperity.
I fall on the Empowerment side of things. Let me quote John D. Rockefeller Jr.: "I believe that every right implies a responsibility: every opportunity, an obligation: every possesion, a duty".
I am sorry for the losses experienced by the hurricaine victims. But they had a duty to their home to provide the insurance required. It's as simple as that.
Nick, Virginia (Sent Nov 26, 2005 9:14:10 AM)
What is all the donation money collected being used for? Why should anyone donate if it's not helping. Can we find out how all the money is being used? Everyone should read their homeowners policy. Remember the old saying "better save then sorry". Don't expect help for your insurance companies you better the government helps all of you rebuild. Again show me where all the money goes.
Rick O'Connell, Streamwood, Illinois (Sent Nov 26, 2005 10:18:51 AM)
Face it, if the homeowner policies paid out claims on the presumption that wind was the culprit, many insurance companies would probably go "belly up," just as after hurricane Andrew. But where the damage is, no doubt, due to wind, the insurance companies are obligated to take care of their customers. According to FEMA's flood statistics, "25% of all flood claims occur in the low-to-moderate risk areas." But even the victims of Katrina, who were insured for flooding, are not collecting nearly enough to rebuild their homes. Flood insurance is only inexpensive if FEMA considers you a "preferred risk." Although my own area is not prone to flooding, my flood insurance is approximately $1,000 annually. I contacted two "flood premium reduction companies," one of which is currently working to lower my premium. Typically, if they are unsuccessful in either lowering your premium or lifting the mandatory flood insurance, requirement, (for mortgage holders,) they will either waive their fee or rebate a portion of it. According to one of them, "Over 90% of high risk designations we've evaluated were wrong."
Neal Millman, Wilton Manors, FL. (Sent Nov 26, 2005 10:37:44 AM)
I'm appalled at the utter lack of realization being shown by so many. IF insurance companies are forced to pay claims for non-covered damages, every homeowners policy in the nation will immediately triple in price. No homeowners policy has EVER covered flood damage. It is a standard exclusion. This is not a matter of insurance companies using fine print to deny a claim. Its a matter of people trying to use emotion to force a company to payout a benefit to which the recipient is not entitled. I do not deserve to have my homeowners premium triple, because you chose not to spend $300/yr to protect yourself. I'm sorry you're without home. But I dont you a new one.
Jim Dirks, Austin, TX (Sent Nov 26, 2005 10:53:47 AM)
Mississippians anti-government beliefs are a direct cause of the misery after Katrina. Being so anti-Gov't. has resulted in a small weak, state government too weak to protect its people in times of crisis OR to protect its people from the insurance corporations that purposely write obscure language into policies in order to avoid paying on policies when they need it most.
Maybe this disaster will finally wake Mississippians up to the fact that other states like CA, NY, NJ realized long ago. Insurance companies exists to make a profit. They do it by gambling they will make more money from protecting people who never need help than the money they will spend helping people when they do need help. States like CA, NY and NJ knew this would lead to a conflict that would ensure people would be ripped off. So those states stopped allowing insurance policies to include such deceptive clauses in their policies. This resulted in more expensive insurance, but it also resulted in dependable, effective insurance.
In Mississippi, the state government is way too poor and underfunded to take on the insurance industry. Mississippi instead let insurance companies basically write the laws governing insurance companies in the state, and as a result they have this insurance mess post-Katrina . Somehow Mississippians thought would get great protection both from the state and insurance companies, but only pay a fraction of the amount people in states like CA, NY and NJ pay. Now they learn how untrue that notion was.
Mississipians having placed extreme financial constraints on their state government can expect to lose the lawsuit. What the insurance companies did in that state is legal in every way according to the laws of Mississippi.
Mississippians only have themselves to blame. They believed that the profit motive would ensure everyone would be treated fairly, even though paying on a policy costs insurance companies money. They refused to place enough faith in their government to fund it well enough to properly play its protective role in times of crisis. Whatever gross failures occured in Mississippi government during this mess is, because the state is broke. It is NOT because government wastes money or does not care. It doesn't have any money to waste. LOL
The insurance companies have lots of cash to spare, and you can be they will spend all they need to in order to ensure the weak, poor government of Mississippi loses the upcoming court battle to force insurance companies to pay up.
In short you get what you pay for, that applies to government too. Relative to the rest of the nation, and especially in states like CA, NY and NJ Mississippians pay next to nothing for the little government they get. Considering that no one should expect much help from its on a shoestring financed state.
They shouldn't be mad at the insurance companies. They shouldn't be mad at the state. Mississippians should be mad at themselves. Mississippians chose to be extraordinarily miserly in funding for services, and now they are paying the true price for their unthinking stinginess.
The rest of the nation should not be forced to pay for the cheapness of Mississippians beyond making sure the basics are provided for. Any rebuilding should be on the backs of the Mississippians who so foolishly believed that profit-making companies would come through and pay in full, even though that would cost them money, and for believing they could get it all from a state government that is one of the poorest funded in the nation.
Jonathan Morales (Sent Nov 26, 2005 12:07:19 PM)
I have news for you, very few people in California have earthquake insurance. They will all be singing the same tune and demanding a government bailout soon enough. I can't imagine another hurricane along the coast or an earthquake in California. Who ever heard of such a thing? It's not like these things are predictable... oh wait, yes they are.
People in this country need to start taking accountability for their own actions and understand the meaning of accepting risk. Someone assumes the risk for damage, either the owner, or the insurance company. If you aren't prepared to accept the consequences if the risk turns into reality, then you need to buy proper insurance. If you can't afford the insurance, then you can't afford the home.
John Rice (Sent Nov 26, 2005 1:05:23 PM)
I don't think that most of you really understand the problems we have here. I have lived here since 1959. I went though Camille, that has the worst hurricane to ever hit the Gulf Coast. Everyone here encluding the flood maps never thought that the water could ever get as high as Katrina brought it. 90% of the insurance companies,real estate agents,attorneys, mortgage companies never even dreamed that the water would raise into the C zone. If Camille did not get it, you were safe from tidel waters. Well, with Katrina the wind blew very hard and windows blew out, roofs came off. Than the water came and washed away all the proof. So if you are in a C Zone (no flood zone) and your home is completely gone the insurance company pays you NOTHING.
Now you want to tell me that there was no wind damage to my home.
Then you have the homes on the other side of the rail road tracks that the float water from Camille never went over the tracks levee (also in C zones). What about them. Most of them had 6 to 9 feet of water. No body thought of that happening. No even the goverment. 90% of them had no flood insurance. Most of us are not looking for handouts, just help. I put in for SBA loan the week after the storm. I have not heard a word from SBA. I hear that they are turning most the the loans down. Than you have to go back to FEMA . No one knows what they will do, because we have not gotten that far. I lost my business,home and my rental properties are either totally gone or had 8 foot of water. The properties that were in the flood zone had the proper insurances. The properties in non flood zones did not have flood insurance.
I want the thanks the thousands of people who have helped all of us.
It would be a god send if we could pay the last 5 to 10 years of flood insurance for up to the limit we had wind insurance for and have the flood insurance program pay us. From someone who has been here stayed though the storm and is still here.
Sue, Waveland, MS (Sent Nov 26, 2005 1:58:35 PM)
I do feel for those that lost all and didn't have flood insurance but where one lives and what they can afford are not related. For many people, especially fixed income, elderly, $1200/year is a lot of money considering standard insurance covering every other calmity in the world only cost a few hundred dollars per year. Moving someplace where flood insurance isn't required/needd isn't an option if your leaving all your family and friends behind.
As far as insurance companies going belly up, highly unlikely. I remember news coverage of the high payouts for Florida hurricanes last year and many companies were saying it wasn't hurting their bottom line. Some of this was for investor confidence, but they wouldn't be in business long if they didn't get enough from premimums or market investments to cover their payouts and still pay thier investors. In Florida, they have another tack, one payout for non-flood huricane damage and your policy is dropped. In the hardest hit areas, no new policies were/are being written and Florida residents have to go to state fund with very high costs. It is mandated by law, that the state fund be higher than any other high risk policy so the state doesn't compete with private insurance companies. A friend of mine now pays $1800/year for insurance and still needs flood insurance on top of that. My guess is that many Missisippi residents that do get insurance payouts for non-flood damage will find themselves in similar shoes.
GM, Lancaster, PA (Sent Nov 26, 2005 6:08:16 PM)
Mississippians will do and are doing fine. We don't need or want any help from anyone who doesn't want to participate, thank you very much. We tried to secede from the rest of ya'll honery folks once and perhaps we should consider it again! If you think that we are stupid, well you are wrong. If you think we made bad choices...perhaps, but we will take our medicine and pull our selves up and have another go at it. One thing about it, we do learn from our mistakes. Nature threw us a curve and we swung at it. I wonder what you would do if you found yourselves in our shoes. Oh! but then you people are so much smarter than us that nothing like this could ever happen to you. Uh-huh! We will be fine. We've done it before and we can do it now. We are not a bunch of whiners and while the rest of ya'll have been blowing your hot air into this web site, we Mississippians have been rebuilding our lives, our homes, walking to work, living in tents, and raising our families just as if it was all a normal part of life. Our schools are open and we are taking state tests, playing sports, falling in love, growing up, and moving on. We actually sit around and laugh about all of this. We get together a couple of times a week and pray for the rest of ya'll! Thank you for thinking about us, but don't put yourselves out. We appreciate the helping hand and all the fine people who have come down and helped us dig out. We've made some fine friends from this mess. However, those of you worrying about us taking your money...don't. You see, we pay taxes too and we have gumption and pride as well. We don't go where we aren't wanted and when people come to visit and are rude, we politely ask them to leave. You see for us this is just another opportunity to grow stronger and love harder and rise above. Thank you very much... ;)
T. Smith, Pascagoula, MS (Sent Nov 26, 2005 9:20:21 PM)
One thing that needs to be changed is the elimination of fine print in any kind of contract. Insurance companies should spell out their coverages in "plain and simple" English, than customers can choose what coverages they want and need and take their chances if they wish. Also in certain areas of risk certain coverages should be mandatory, plain and simple.
Dixie Dlugokiencki, San Francisco, CA (Sent Nov 26, 2005 11:39:30 PM)
The insurance companies are thieves. They take people's money and refuse to provide the service for which they were paid. The 2 per cent hurricane deductible is a joke. The insurance companies use the premiums people pay to pay their top execs huge salaries. Oh, and forget about going into bankruptcy. The Republicans have now made it almost impossible for ordinary people to file bankruptcy. Large corporations can do it to avoid paying for retirees' pensions and insurance and employee benefits, but not the middle class. The Republicans have succeeded in loading the dice against the middle class, and will back the claims of the insurance companies over hurricane victims. After all, they figure, money talks, and bs. walks.
Nancy Watson (Sent Nov 27, 2005 12:18:11 AM)
I am sorry, i have family in Jackson COunty, MS. I have known of theway isurance people are. They will not talk to you about flood insurance, some don't even offer it to you at all. Stating that you do not qualify for it. And on top of that if you were hit by one hurricane, you were more than likely told that you might lose your coverage. You pay so much money for something that you may never use, but when you need it, they tell you no. That by true definition is fraud. If these insurance companies refuse to pay for this hurricane it will tell me something. And will make my final decision on whether i will have it at all. That surge was a wall of water driven by wind. No matter what they say, it was hurricane damage. Not flood. I wish everyone in those areas affected the best of luck this this matter and hope the insurance companies do right by the policies. And all customers they have.
William Weil, Laughlin, NV (Sent Nov 27, 2005 2:19:23 AM)
I am sorry, i have family in Jackson County, MS. I have known of the way isurance people are. They will not talk to you about flood insurance, some don't even offer it to you at all. Stating that you do not qualify for it. And on top of that if you were hit by one hurricane, you were more than likely told that you might lose your coverage. You pay so much money for something that you may never use, but when you need it, they tell you no. That by true definition is fraud. If these insurance companies refuse to pay for this hurricane it will tell me something. And will make my final decision on whether i will have it at all. That surge was a wall of water driven by wind. No matter what they say, it was hurricane damage. Not flood. I wish everyone in those areas affected the best of luck this this matter and hope the insurance companies do right by the policies. And all customers they have.
William Weil, Laughlin, NV (Sent Nov 27, 2005 2:21:25 AM)
We live in Florida, and one of the things that we had to sign when we bought our house was a form that we understood that flood insurance was not required for where our house is situated (on a hill, 25 miles from the Gulf) - but if we wanted it, it was available.
This was part of the mortgage company required paperwork - anyone who has ever gotten a mortgage anywhere has probably signed the same form.
I think the confusion came in because people just didn't understand the definition of flood vs hurricane when they chose not to buy the insurance.
This is tragic for those who are uninsured.
Hurricane insurance is no bargain. The 2 percent deductible was a big surprise to Floridians last year - because house values have risen so much.
A lot of people who bought a fifty thousand dollar home ten years ago thought their deductible would be one thousand dollars - only to learn that the deductible was based on the current value of their home - and suddenly found themselves looking at a ten thousand dollar deductible.
The one true thing is that insurance companies are in business to earn a profit, and I wonder how much of a hand they have had in the sudden rise in property values in Florida over the past two years?
AL - Citrus County Florida (Sent Nov 27, 2005 3:40:24 AM)
Having many friends and family on the MS Coast I've heard several sides to the insurance debate. In fact, we lost a 'vacation home' there...24 feet above sea level. Our insurance company asked us if we wanted to get flood stating that we definitely weren't in a flood zone but being one half block off of the beach they said they really felt they needed to ask...they said it was cheap...so my husband said sure why not. We got the check for 100% two weeks ago...we're expecting an additional check for contents soon. This has gotten me to thinking a great deal. So I decided to take a poll over the last month as I traveled throughout Texas. The only people that had 'flood' insurance where those living in the Bayou City (Houston)...a city that traditionally floods from rain every year -somewhere! Most in Houston were AMAZED that others living near the coast wouldn't have flood insurance. Like one man just south of downtown Houston said, 'We have NO elevation here like MS...Katrina could have brought water to my door step...I'm three feet above sea level and it takes me 30 minutes to get to the Gulf, but nothing stops water...it's the most destructive force in nature!"
On the flip side not one person I spoke to in Corpus Christi had flood insurance... they said, "Corpus is protected by big barrier islands and sits on a rise." That's what Bay St. Louis thought. I asked one gentleman who's home is located about three blocks off of the bay there why he didn't have flood. He stated that he was 15 feet up and didn't need it. Let's see...if Katrina had hit Corpus that would have put him 15 feet under water...okay, let's take off 10 feet of that because he has a 'barrier island' protecting him. I pointed out that he would have taken possibly 5 feet of water... that makes your house unlivable. He just stared at me in shock. Think he'll get insurance now? Hmmmmmmm.
An Inquiring Mind (Sent Nov 27, 2005 8:31:12 AM)
I live in So. Miss. with an elevation of 27ft.
We got flooded. We fortunately carried flood insurance.
Very few in my neighborhood did. I was lucky in that
my insurance agent did not dissuade me from getting
it - in fact he noted that my coverage was insufficient
and encouraged me to bump it up, even though I didn't
have to have it. I did. Three months later, I needed
it after all.
Speaking to others in my neighborhood, I heard time
and time again that their insurance agents actively
discouraged them from buying flood insurance. Not
only that but no mortgage holder would allow you to
take it out of escrow. That's fine (it was around
$300/yr) but it gave it the patina of buying an
extended warranty on your toaster.
It's easy to say how others _should_ have had the
insurance. I wish you were here prior to the
flood and hear how people were actively being
discouraged from buying it because "you don't have
to have it."
J (Sent Nov 27, 2005 9:20:51 AM)
SEND A COMMENT
PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.