Katrina victims lose in appeals court

[Dr_LHA 3]

Insurers don't sit around twirling their mustaches scheming how they can rip off their customers. In fact, customer retention is extremely important.

Until those customers become too much of a risk, that is.

[Jenn! 918]

Insurers don't sit around twirling their mustaches scheming how they can rip off their customers. In fact, customer retention is extremely important.

Until those customers become too much of a risk, that is.

True.

But then you can just go to Progressive.

Edited August 3, 2007 by jenn3539

[Fandango 1,439]

But in this case you can pay to be covered for flood damage but still have your claim denied because a subjective determination is made that a certain incident which most people would assume is covered falls - outside of the range of coverage for that particular type of incident. I think most people would reasonably assume that flood damage coverage includes that caused by major storms, but clearly that's not the case. And again - a person has no way of knowing that until its already too late.

As far as it being worthless - if your claim won't pay out based on a subjective interpretation of a natural event that you would otherwise be covered for, and which takes advantage of a 'get out' clause to avoid paying - I'd certainly say its worthless... or at the least of very dubious value.

You do have a way of knowing. You ask. If you are unsure if your being told the truth you have them show you in the policy. I don't get where your coming from fish. 99% of the circumstances will be covered with the average policy. Your house catches fire, they pay. A tree falls on it, they pay. The Katrina event was a once in a lifetime thing. If the homeowner wants to be covered for that then he asks questions, is given the price for that coverage and then decides if it's worth it. It's not up to the insurance company to cover you if you don't ask for it.

What would you ask Gary?

"Is my house covered against flooding?"

Answer "yes"

What you have no control over is whether an extreme weather event will be interpreted as 'man-made'. Your policy cannot possibly spell out that process of interpretation in contractual terms. Its dependent purely on the determination made about a specific incident - not the theory.

In theory you should be covered against flooding. In reality, you aren't.

Follow up q: 'Are there any exclusions? If so, what are they, and can I have that in writing?'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But in this case you can pay to be covered for flood damage but still have your claim denied because a subjective determination is made that a certain incident which most people would assume is covered falls - outside of the range of coverage for that particular type of incident. I think most people would reasonably assume that flood damage coverage includes that caused by major storms, but clearly that's not the case. And again - a person has no way of knowing that until its already too late.

As far as it being worthless - if your claim won't pay out based on a subjective interpretation of a natural event that you would otherwise be covered for, and which takes advantage of a 'get out' clause to avoid paying - I'd certainly say its worthless... or at the least of very dubious value.

You do have a way of knowing. You ask. If you are unsure if your being told the truth you have them show you in the policy. I don't get where your coming from fish. 99% of the circumstances will be covered with the average policy. Your house catches fire, they pay. A tree falls on it, they pay. The Katrina event was a once in a lifetime thing. If the homeowner wants to be covered for that then he asks questions, is given the price for that coverage and then decides if it's worth it. It's not up to the insurance company to cover you if you don't ask for it.

What would you ask Gary?

"Is my house covered against flooding?"

Answer "yes"

What you have no control over is whether an extreme weather event will be interpreted as 'man-made'. Your policy cannot possibly spell out that process of interpretation in contractual terms. Its dependent purely on the determination made about a specific incident - not the theory.

In theory you should be covered against flooding. In reality, you aren't.

You have obviously never owned a home and had to buy insurance. If your sitting there at or below sea level in a hurricane zone your not thinking "what if the dike breaks" then it's your fault. It's just common sense. There is a difference between a flood caused by a foot of rain in an hour and a dike breaking. One is mother nature, the other is man-made.

But this is surely where the meanings become somewhat fluid. OK we can agree that a foot of rain in an hour is an act of nature - but where it gets tricky is if say... that flooding is facilitated by say... inadequate drainage (We've had a couple of big storms in the last few weeks - enough to put some roads under water). Then an act of nature magically becomes 'man-made'.

The question as to whether or not the company 'should pay' is really about the number of people affected. Look what happened after 9/11...

[Fandango 1,439]

There was no flood insurance, people.

[Jenn! 918]

The question as to whether or not the company 'should pay' is really about the number of people affected. Look what happened after 9/11...

That's true. And I think that further supports the outcome of this particular case. I would think that Allstate would be inclined to pay out if there were any suggestion that it was warranted for fear of all the bad publicity.

[GaryC 7]

In 1996 the midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Here's an interesting article.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070319/h...s-insurance.htm

[Dr_LHA 3]

In 1996 the midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

Less people were affected, I'm guessing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In 1996 the midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

Less people were affected, I'm guessing.

NO was a pretty densely populated area.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In 1996 the midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

Gary - one more thing. You do realise who is paying in the absence of the insurance companies don't you?

The taxpayer...

[Dr_LHA 3]

I looked into this flood Gary mentioned*, apparently it caused $15billion worth of damage and killed 50 people. In comparison Katrina caused $86billion worth of damage and killed almost two thousand people (I can't find the exact number).

*I assume this is what you were talking about: http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/floods/papers/oh_2/great.htm

Actually I remember seeing the aftermath of this, I was in St Louis in Sept 1993 and saw the paddle steamers scattered around the mississippi like unwanted children's toys.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[Caladan 19]

In 1996 the midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

Gary - one more thing. You do realise who is paying in the absence of the insurance companies don't you?

The taxpayer...

One of the moments I was very proud of my hometown when some idiot wrote into the local paper whining that back in the previous September no one gave him money for the flooding in his basement yet Katrina victims were getting aid. It was like hearing of someone's death of colon cancer and complaining that you had a stomachache once. What made me proud is that most of the rest of the town wrote into the paper pointing that out.

The other thing, besides the difference in lives lost and property damage, was that the damage in NO itself led to the city being trapped and cutoff by stagnant water. A high school friend worked for the CDC and had the fun job of helping stem disease in the aftermath.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In 1996 the midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

Gary - one more thing. You do realise who is paying in the absence of the insurance companies don't you?

The taxpayer...

One of the moments I was very proud of my hometown when some idiot wrote into the local paper whining that back in the previous September no one gave him money for the flooding in his basement yet Katrina victims were getting aid. It was like hearing of someone's death of colon cancer and complaining that you had a stomachache once. What made me proud is that most of the rest of the town wrote into the paper pointing that out.

The other thing, besides the difference in lives lost and property damage, was that the damage in NO itself led to the city being trapped and cutoff by stagnant water. A high school friend worked for the CDC and had the fun job of helping stem disease in the aftermath.

I'm curious to know how many people who believe that those people should 'be more responsible' are adverse to giving them any financial assistance of any kind. I think its easy to say when you're not stuck in a situation like the residents of NO. Moreover, there seems to be a distinct lack of vicariousness on display - in terms of people putting themselves in the shoes of those less fortunate than them. Look at how the nation responded to 9/11; compared to that NO seems to being treated like a dirty little secret that noone wants to acknowledge or deal with, a mess that should be quietly swept under the carpet.

Wonder if there are any Lousiana residents here.

Edited August 3, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

In 1996 the Midwest had a huge flood that made Katrina and NE look like a gentle shower. The whole middle of the country was turned into a giant lake. Whole towns were washed away. Yet we didn't see the stink about it like we are with Katrina. Why is that? People lost homes, lives were turned upside down, and people died. What has changed?

Gary - one more thing. You do realise who is paying in the absence of the insurance companies don't you?

The taxpayer...

One of the moments I was very proud of my hometown when some idiot wrote into the local paper whining that back in the previous September no one gave him money for the flooding in his basement yet Katrina victims were getting aid. It was like hearing of someone's death of colon cancer and complaining that you had a stomachache once. What made me proud is that most of the rest of the town wrote into the paper pointing that out.

The other thing, besides the difference in lives lost and property damage, was that the damage in NO itself led to the city being trapped and cutoff by stagnant water. A high school friend worked for the CDC and had the fun job of helping stem disease in the aftermath.

I'm curious to know how many people who believe that those people should 'be more responsible' are adverse to giving them any financial assistance of any kind. I think its easy to say when you're not stuck in a situation like the residents of NO. Moreover, there seems to be a distinct lack of vicariousness on display - in terms of people putting themselves in the shoes of those less fortunate than them. Look at how the nation responded to 9/11; compared to that NO seems to being treated like a dirty little secret that no one wants to acknowledge or deal with, a mess that should be quietly swept under the carpet.

Wonder if there are any Louisiana residents here.

I am in favor of federal disaster relief. That is one of the functions of the federal government. Despite what the media coverage might have shown I think we did a good job of helping the victims of Katrina. Some of the responsibility for the perceived lack of a response must be shouldered by the people themselves. They were warned that a huge storm was coming and they didn't leave. Some should also fall on the local and state governments. "school bus" Nagin had the means to get people out and he didn't do it. The federal government shouldn't be the first, last and only solution to a problem. The local government should take that task on and turn to the federal government when it gets to much for them. I am really sickend by the way this whole thing was politicized. Somehow it turned into Bush's fault when in reality the local and state government made things as bad as they were.