Katrina victims lose in appeals court

[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.

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.

True, but I don't really see how that should be the problem of the insurance company. If need be, maybe the government will have to step in and help relocate people. I don't have an easy solution. The bottom line, stay away from the SE coastal region if you want to be able to purchase homeowners insurance.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Well firstly - its not like insurance is ever missold or mis-represented by the agent selling it (the array of options available is often bewildering and unless you have an understanding of how the industry works, and indeed how the contract works - you're not going to be party to every clause and stipulation in your contract. Secondly, when we're talking about thousands of people being affected by that lack of coverage the question of whether those homeowners are lazy or simply uninformed about their coverage becomes rather suspect in my view.

[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.

True, but I don't really see how that should be the problem of the insurance company. If need be, maybe the government will have to step in and help relocate people. I don't have an easy solution. The bottom line, stay away from the SE coastal region if you want to be able to purchase homeowners insurance.

Unfortunately those realisations are always after the fact. Thinking "gee it was a ####### idea to buy a house here" doesn't change the reality of the situation.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

Because this was a hundred year flood - an extreme event beyond the normal course of events. Like a Mount St Helens eruption or the Asian Tsunami.

[GaryC 7]

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?

Because this was a hundred year flood - an extreme event beyond the normal course of events. Like a Mount St Helens eruption or the Asian Tsunami.

I used to live in an earthquake zone. (St.Louis area) I knew that even though it has been 200 years since the last big one another big one was a possibility. I always asked and verified that I had earthquake insurance. Neglectfulness or stupidity on the part of the home owner is not an excuse to blame the insurance companies or the government.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

Because this was a hundred year flood - an extreme event beyond the normal course of events. Like a Mount St Helens eruption or the Asian Tsunami.

I used to live in an earthquake zone. (St.Louis area) I knew that even though it has been 200 years since the last big one another big one was a possibility. I always asked and verified that I had earthquake insurance. Neglectfulness or stupidity on the part of the home owner is not an excuse to blame the insurance companies or the government.

If we're talking thousands of cases (which we are) I'd say it has less to do with neglect or stupidity the part of the homeowner.

Of course many of the people living in that area weren't exactly swimming in money to begin with. Out of curiosity how much would additional flood protection cost a homeowner living in an area like that prior to Katrina?

Edited August 3, 2007 by Number 6

[Caladan 19]

I don't think it was negligence. (And really, a sizable percentage of seafood and oil comes through NOLA. I like to imagine those sneering about the idiots living in NOLA doing so while snacking on shrimp cocktail and filling up their cars.) Because it does seem the question was whether the policy covered man-made floods, and whether the levees failing counts as a man-made flood even if they failed due to a major hurricane. This seems to indicate the people had some kind of flood insurance and the question was over the interpretation of the clause.

All this means now, of course, is that they'll sue the CoE for having levees that failed. Which probably deserves more attention anyway.

[GaryC 7]

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?

Because this was a hundred year flood - an extreme event beyond the normal course of events. Like a Mount St Helens eruption or the Asian Tsunami.

I used to live in an earthquake zone. (St.Louis area) I knew that even though it has been 200 years since the last big one another big one was a possibility. I always asked and verified that I had earthquake insurance. Neglectfulness or stupidity on the part of the home owner is not an excuse to blame the insurance companies or the government.

If we're talking thousands of cases (which we are) I'd say it has less to do with neglect or stupidity the part of the homeowner.

Of course many of the people living in that area weren't exactly swimming in money to begin with. Out of curiosity how much would additional flood protection cost a homeowner living in an area like that prior to Katrina?

It's part of the cost of living there. If they can't afford the insurance then they can't afford to live there. Living 30 miles inland would be cheaper and wouldn't carry the same risk. They chose to live there. Insurance is a part of home ownership the same as auto insurance is a part of the cost of owning a car. I does not matter if it was one person or 10,000 people that got caught without insurance, it is still the responsibility of the home owner to make sure he is covered. Why won't you admit that it is a lack of personal responsibility and and innate dependence on the government that is the reason for this disaster. It's all a nanny state mentality. People get used to being taken care of and when that doesn't pan out they cry that it's someone else's fault.

[Caladan 19]

And if you drive across the bridge and the bridge collapses, that's your own fault for not using a boat!

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

It's part of the cost of living there. If they can't afford the insurance then they can't afford to live there. Living 30 miles inland would be cheaper and wouldn't carry the same risk. They chose to live there. Insurance is a part of home ownership the same as auto insurance is a part of the cost of owning a car. I does not matter if it was one person or 10,000 people that got caught without insurance, it is still the responsibility of the home owner to make sure he is covered. Why won't you admit that it is a lack of personal responsibility and and innate dependence on the government that is the reason for this disaster. It's all a nanny state mentality. People get used to being taken care of and when that doesn't pan out they cry that it's someone else's fault.

Logic is a wonderful thing! To bad some people lack it. Well said Gary old boy!

Edited August 3, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[GaryC 7]

And if you drive across the bridge and the bridge collapses, that's your own fault for not using a boat!

Come on now, you know the difference between a privately owned home and a public road. Your getting silly now.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

And if you drive across the bridge and the bridge collapses, that's your own fault for not using a boat!

Wow! you have got to be kidding?

[Caladan 19]

Of course I'm kidding. But people aren't nanny state for expecting the bridge to stay up and they're not nanny state for expecting the levees to hold, either.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

Because this was a hundred year flood - an extreme event beyond the normal course of events. Like a Mount St Helens eruption or the Asian Tsunami.

I used to live in an earthquake zone. (St.Louis area) I knew that even though it has been 200 years since the last big one another big one was a possibility. I always asked and verified that I had earthquake insurance. Neglectfulness or stupidity on the part of the home owner is not an excuse to blame the insurance companies or the government.

If we're talking thousands of cases (which we are) I'd say it has less to do with neglect or stupidity the part of the homeowner.

Of course many of the people living in that area weren't exactly swimming in money to begin with. Out of curiosity how much would additional flood protection cost a homeowner living in an area like that prior to Katrina?

It's part of the cost of living there. If they can't afford the insurance then they can't afford to live there. Living 30 miles inland would be cheaper and wouldn't carry the same risk. They chose to live there. Insurance is a part of home ownership the same as auto insurance is a part of the cost of owning a car. I does not matter if it was one person or 10,000 people that got caught without insurance, it is still the responsibility of the home owner to make sure he is covered. Why won't you admit that it is a lack of personal responsibility and and innate dependence on the government that is the reason for this disaster. It's all a nanny state mentality. People get used to being taken care of and when that doesn't pan out they cry that it's someone else's fault.

Because as Caladan pointed out - a lot of those people thought they were covered for flooding, but the question was over the 'interpretation' of the clause. Lets not pretend that these companies are honest for a minute - the whole ethos of insurance is to find ways not to pay out. It happened after 9/11, and surprise surprise if it didn't happen again after Katrina.

Moreover on being able to afford it - you're talking entire communities upping and moving because a specific type of additional catastrophe insurance is too high. By that rationale- NO should have been a rich-man's paradise because surely noone who could afford every protection would choose to live there. Unforunately you'll find that's the case everywhere - should I pay my mortgage or get this extra insurance? Should I pay for my prescription drugs, or pay my utility bills? People can't afford everything - sometimes you have to go without health insurance, and many do for reasons they can't control only to find that the systems let them down when they most need them.

[Jenn! 918]

This isn't just a phenomenon with the poor living on the LA coast. It happens in FL all the time - all of these multi-million dollar homes on the FL coast. The state regulates pricing so heavily that it's not cost beneficial for an insurer to write policies there. And then there's all the media backlash when word is spread that insurers don't want to write hurricane risks in FL. Well of course they don't!