Katrina victims lose in appeals court

[Fandango 1,439]

Right, but it's not the ins companies' fault if the consumers doesn't keep abreast of changes in their policies...

True - but these days you pretty much have to have an advanced understanding of legal terminology to make sense of some of the hidden stuff in those contracts. Same with health insurance - I wonder whether people really do choose the right plans for them or merely choose to read what the insurance company decides is important to highlight.

I do think that the insurance industry needs to be better regulated so that their pursuit of profit (which lets face it is a big conflict of interest) doesn't come at the expense of diddling the consumer out of insurance payments; or giving them a false sense of security that they are covered when in fact they aren't.

I agree with the first bit....which is why my mother and I both made appts to go down and discuss what these changes meant to us. It wasn't rocket science, and we kept ourselves informed. After all, they're our possessions, so who's going to protect them more than we should? It's not the ins co's job to make anyone take an interest in THEIR policy changes.

Ins info comes through the mail...I read it. Changes to my cc accts...I read it. Health ins changes...I read it.

It really is a tragedy of what's going on here with the people of NO...but I really cannot help but think 'why didn't anyone manage their own policies?' You know, when I had my car accident, I wound up a $1mil in debt. I paid for 100/300 car ins at the time. Well, just because my bills were $1mil does not mean that my car ins had to pay that....that is not what my policy was. I wasn't paying for $1 mil, so why should I get it? Granted, had the ins failed to tender the policy limits, then I could have sued them, and prolly gotten loads....but at the end of the day, they forked over $100k & then I was all '####### do I do now?'

Sucks, yes...but hey...if you don't have it covered, you don't get the money.

[Jenn! 918]

When you buy insurance you always make sure you get the correct riders to cover the things you need. The last time I bought home owners insurance I made sure that I was covered for earthquake and floods. The basic policy does not cover that. It isn't the fault of the insurance companies or the government if the home owner didn't take the time to look over the policy. It's personal responsibility people!! They shouldn't get a dime from the insurance or the government if they didn't get the correct coverage.

I have to agree. Of course, it's my job is to price automobile and homeowners insurance, so I think I'm a bit biased.

[Jenn! 918]

I do think that the insurance industry needs to be better regulated so that their pursuit of profit (which lets face it is a big conflict of interest) doesn't come at the expense of diddling the consumer out of insurance payments; or giving them a false sense of security that they are covered when in fact they aren't.

The insurance industry is extremely regulated. I prepare excess profit reports every quarter to determine whether we've made too much money. If so, we are required to reimburse our insureds.

Edited August 3, 2007 by jenn3539

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right, but it's not the ins companies' fault if the consumers doesn't keep abreast of changes in their policies...

True - but these days you pretty much have to have an advanced understanding of legal terminology to make sense of some of the hidden stuff in those contracts. Same with health insurance - I wonder whether people really do choose the right plans for them or merely choose to read what the insurance company decides is important to highlight.

I do think that the insurance industry needs to be better regulated so that their pursuit of profit (which lets face it is a big conflict of interest) doesn't come at the expense of diddling the consumer out of insurance payments; or giving them a false sense of security that they are covered when in fact they aren't.

I agree with the first bit....which is why my mother and I both made appts to go down and discuss what these changes meant to us. It wasn't rocket science, and we kept ourselves informed. After all, they're our possessions, so who's going to protect them more than we should? It's not the ins co's job to make anyone take an interest in THEIR policy changes.

Ins info comes through the mail...I read it. Changes to my cc accts...I read it. Health ins changes...I read it.

It really is a tragedy of what's going on here with the people of NO...but I really cannot help but think 'why didn't anyone manage their own policies?' You know, when I had my car accident, I wound up a $1mil in debt. I paid for 100/300 car ins at the time. Well, just because my bills were $1mil does not mean that my car ins had to pay that....that is not what my policy was. I wasn't paying for $1 mil, so why should I get it? Granted, had the ins failed to tender the policy limits, then I could have sued them, and prolly gotten loads....but at the end of the day, they forked over $100k & then I was all '####### do I do now?'

Sucks, yes...but hey...if you don't have it covered, you don't get the money.

Well even if you do have it covered - it doesn't necessarily mean you'll get paid hence - you'll notice that some of the claims following 9/11 went unpaid. Now we have a Federal Law that basically the means in the event of a terrorist act, the taxpayer essentially paying to bail people out instead of the insurers.

[Caladan 19]

Half the problem with insurance is its all about 'how not to pay'.

Even if you have coverage it doesn't mean that the company will pay out. It wouldn't be the first time that a court has ruled in the insurance companies favour rather than them pay out on thousands of cases. Look what happened on 9/11. Think the insurance companies paid out on all those life insurance claims?

That's what really gets it, and for me, Xavier University being part of the suit suggests that it's a lot of barely legal trickery. Universities are usually insured out the wazoo, and from the article it sounds like people DID have flood insurance, but the only floods that were covered were 'acts of God' floods, not 'CoE fails to make proper repairs to the levee and you can't prove that the water damage wasn't from that flooding, not the original hurricane and resulting flood.'

But even so, even if you agree people should have had insurance, I really don't get the glee at other people's misery people are experiencing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Kind of like pre-existing condition clauses in health insurance contracts. If you lose your job and coverage but have a persistent chronic condition (i.e the sort of person who most needs the benefits of their paid coverage) when you get another job you often can't get insurance, or else are priced out of the system. Happened to my FIL several times over the last 5 years - he got a job pretty soon after losing his old one, but whenever you change companies its counted as a new contract and the company approaches it as "well you had this before, I'm not paying for that". Needless to say, his premiums are through the roof.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Number 6

[Fandango 1,439]

Half the problem with insurance is its all about 'how not to pay'.

Even if you have coverage it doesn't mean that the company will pay out. It wouldn't be the first time that a court has ruled in the insurance companies favour rather than them pay out on thousands of cases. Look what happened on 9/11. Think the insurance companies paid out on all those life insurance claims?

That's what really gets it, and for me, Xavier University being part of the suit suggests that it's a lot of barely legal trickery. Universities are usually insured out the wazoo, and from the article it sounds like people DID have flood insurance, but the only floods that were covered were 'acts of God' floods, not 'CoE fails to make proper repairs to the levee and you can't prove that the water damage wasn't from that flooding, not the original hurricane and resulting flood.'

But even so, even if you agree people should have had insurance, I really don't get the glee at other people's misery people are experiencing.

From the article, I gathered that there wasn't flood insurance...

the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs' policies unambiguously preclude their recovery

[Caladan 19]

An earlier one I read (Newsweek, last year) was sort of ambiguous between 'damage caused by hurricanes', which the plaintiffs were arguing included floods, and 'no floods that were manmade.' And basically the strategy of the insurance company was to shift blame onto the levee system, arguing that while the policy included hurricane damage, it didn't include damage caused by hurricanes that caused levees to break.

Plus, I don't think you can take out 'manmade flood insurance.'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then there's this little nugget - insurers are now refusing to cover people living in NO, or have raised premiums to such a point that the people can't afford to pay them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/28/...in1663142.shtml

[Fandango 1,439]

Kind of like pre-existing condition clauses in health insurance contracts. If you lose your job and coverage but have a persistent chronic condition (i.e the sort of person who most needs the benefits of their paid coverage) when you get another job you often can't get insurance, or else are priced out of the system. Happened to my FIL several times over the last 5 years - he got a job pretty soon after losing his old one, but whenever you change companies its counted as a new contract and the company approaches it as "well you had this before, I'm not paying for that". Needless to say, his premiums are through the roof.

If you lose your job, you're entitled to COBRA coverage for 3 years & there are no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Also, after COBRA runs out, according to BCBS, they were obligated by FL law to offer me pvt ins without excluding the pre-existing conditions. You have to go through the whole medical questionaire bit..which to me seemed silly since they had all my med records....but then they'll rate you and offer you coverage.

They offered me coverage, but the rate was crazy high. Can't really blame them though...with the medical history I had, from their standpoint, they were more prone to pay out for drs and medical treatments for me than they would for a 'normal' person.

My problem was no longer 'chronic' or needing medical treatment...and my surgeon had written me off years before that...but at the same time, there's no denying that I have an issue when it comes to my neck...and I am not able to withstand future trauma to that area as a 'normal' person could. So I am a higher risk to the company.

Just like a driver in many car wrecks would be rated higher than a safe driver with no wrecks...the probability is higher for an accident with the former, rather than the latter.

Edited August 3, 2007 by LisaD

[Jenn! 918]

Then there's this little nugget - insurers are now refusing to cover people living in NO, or have raised premiums to such a point that the people can't afford to pay them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/28/...in1663142.shtml

Premiums are high because those homes are poor risks. If those people don't pay the premium, someone has to. I'm sure the people living in inland LA don't want to subsidize those living on the coast.

[Marilyn. 340]

nm

Edited August 3, 2007 by MarilynP

[GaryC 7]

True - but these days you pretty much have to have an advanced understanding of legal terminology to make sense of some of the hidden stuff in those contracts. Same with health insurance - I wonder whether people really do choose the right plans for them or merely choose to read what the insurance company decides is important to highlight.

I do think that the insurance industry needs to be better regulated so that their pursuit of profit (which lets face it is a big conflict of interest) doesn't come at the expense of diddling the consumer out of insurance payments; or giving them a false sense of security that they are covered when in fact they aren't.

It's called asking questions. You don't need a degree in legal terminology to protect yourself and you don't need to get a magnifying glass out to read every single word on a contract. You sit down with the insurance agent and ask detailed questions as to what is covered and what isn't. Then ask them to point out where in the policy it shows that coverage is stated. It isn't that hard.

Look, if someone is covered then the insurance companies can and should pay. If it isn't covered then I am on the side of the insurance companies and I don't think they should be vilified for not paying.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Then there's this little nugget - insurers are now refusing to cover people living in NO, or have raised premiums to such a point that the people can't afford to pay them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/28/...in1663142.shtml

Premiums are high because those homes are poor risks. If those people don't pay the premium, someone has to. I'm sure the people living in inland LA don't want to subsidize those living on the coast.

Which effectively means that if you live in an area thats hit by a disaster you are trapped there - and the chance of selling your house at a decent rate is negligable.

[GaryC 7]

Then there's this little nugget - insurers are now refusing to cover people living in NO, or have raised premiums to such a point that the people can't afford to pay them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/28/...in1663142.shtml

Premiums are high because those homes are poor risks. If those people don't pay the premium, someone has to. I'm sure the people living in inland LA don't want to subsidize those living on the coast.

Which effectively means that if you live in an area thats hit by a disaster you are trapped there - and the chance of selling your house at a decent rate is negligable.

Some places have a higher risk than others. Those places at high risk should be worth less for that reason. Why should everyone else subsidize a few that want to live in flood zones?