Homeowners get Soaked; Now you Might" Live in NH/NYS/NJ/PA?

[KoKo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051012/cm_usatoday/homeownersgetsoakednowyoumighttoo;_ylt=AkoFS.uvlicFX9dpSzBZi6Q__8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4MzQ0N2p2BHNlYwMxNzA0

Homeowners get soaked; now you might, too

Wed Oct 12, 7:26 AM ET

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051012/cm_usatoday/homeownersgetsoakednowyoumighttoo&printer=1

It's hard to sympathize with the big property insurance companies. They can be quick to collect premiums and even quicker to cite fine print as a reason for denying claims. But that doesn't mean the insurers should be forced to pay for losses they clearly stated they wouldn't cover.

Along the Gulf Coast, where Hurricane Katrina damaged or destroyed tens of thousands of homes, a battle is raging over how much the insurers should be required to pay. Complicating the fight is that private homeowners' policies typically cover wind damage but not flood damage, even if the water was driven by hurricane-force winds.

There's no question insurers should have to pay every cent they legitimately owe their Katrina-ravaged policyholders. Insurers should even give them the benefit of the doubt in the wind vs. water debate. Allegations that some companies are stalling on providing aid, or pressuring homeowners to accept far less than what they might be owed, should be investigated aggressively.

But some populist public officials and private lawyers want to go a step further. They've filed irresponsible lawsuits that could drive insurers out of their states or force them to raise premiums for everyone, everywhere. One of the suits, filed last month by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, demands insurers cover all hurricane damage, water or wind alike. That would require insurers, already facing up to $60 billion in Katrina losses, to pay up to $15 billion more for a risk they didn't assume.

The flood exclusion has been standard in insurance policies since 1969. It's why homeowners in coastal areas are encouraged to buy federal flood insurance. The exclusion is heavily promoted, in brochures and on websites, with bold-face type stating "homeowners' insurance doesn't cover floods."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051012/cm_usatoday/homeownersgetsoakednowyoumighttoo;_ylt=AkoFS.uvlicFX9dpSzBZi6Q__8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4MzQ0N2p2BHNlYwMxNzA0

[napi21]

1. There's some dispute with the Gulf Cost situation though.

I'm only repeating what I've heard and read, but if true, tthere is a problem.

There were many homeowners who were told, when they bought their homes and applied for insurance, that they didn't need flood insurance because they were NOT in a flood plane! They paid the additional premium for wind damage, but followed the agent's recommendation and passed on the flood coverage.

After the hurricanes, these homeowners were told that some damage for sure was caused by wind and rain, but some was also caused by rising water, which of course is considered flooding. It was up to the homeowner to prove what part was damaged by wind and rain, and what part was from flooding.

Now, something is wrong with that whole picture! It's as bad as the insurers in Fl who told their customers that if their home was hit by more than one hurricane, they would have to pay a separate deductible for each time it was hit!

I agree, the insurance co. shouldn't have to pay for uncovered damage, but I smell something wrong in this case.

[stopbush]

2. Make the insurers pay up. They can then sue the Fed Gov

for failing to provide funding for the RECOMMENDED repairs to the floodwall system.

The reason most of these areas flooded was because bush cut the funding needed to protect the areas, not because there was a Cat 4 hurricane. The flooding occured because the Fed Gov screwed up, not because the homeowners chose to live where they did.

[KoKo]

3. Kick...we might all need to keep up on what's going on whever we live

these days.