Mississippi making a stand for homeowners and tenants.

fracking insurance companies, they take your money fast enough but loath paying out any.

And God forbid you should be late paying.. boom all gone.

Insurance companies are nothing more than a legalized mafia....

We need insurance companies to protect us from the insurance companies....

I don't know, honestly. I think people should get what they pay for. It's my understanding that home owner's insurance only pays for wind damage from hurricianes. They most certainly shouldn't be paying the bill for houses that were flooded by secondary factors, like rain and overflow from other sources.

If the insurance companies can show in court that these people weren't paying for water damage coverage, I don't think they should be made the scapegoats. After all, FEMA has offered flood insurance to supplement what insurance companies don't offer.

My worry is if these people win, we are all going to pay. Insurance companies will take losses like this into consideration when they come up with our payments, and we'll end up paying higher for stuff that we will eventually end up paying lawyers to get for us.

I *despise* class action suits. I think it sucks when a single law firm gets millions or billions while each person gets a pittance. I think a lot of lawyers have seen this as a feeding frenzy. Don't think for a moment that this will come out of the pockets of the companies in question. Every thin dime will be passed on to you and me.

Don't get me wrong, if they find there was anything confusing about what 'hurricaine' damage was, I'm all for the insurance companies paying. What I DON'T want, though, is for companies to go ahead and take future lawsuits like this into consideration when they figure my premiums. That just means I am paying for coverage I won't get.

What are the rules in that part of the world -- is having insurance required for home ownership? If so, what kind of coverage? What are the premiums like? What do renters have to have?

I'm curious to see if its a) any kind of a financial burden, and whether the standard offers much coverage against catastrophies like hurricanes.

I hope the Attorney General of Mississippi is merely looking at insurance companies trying to weasel out of what is legitimately owed and not trying to muscle money out of them for customers who chose cheaper plans that weren't as comprehensive. If that is what they are doing, Good On 'Em!

I heard somewhere that the AG of Louisiana is actually going after insurance companies (as an industry) to cover people who weren't even insured... that (to me) is nothing less than government theft.

fracking insurance companies, they take your money fast enough but loath paying out any

This is so true.  After I had wrecked my jeep and was in the ICU, I called my local agent and informed him about the wreck.  he said that there wasn't anythin he could do and that I'd have to call the 800 number.  So I did...and the lady on the other end informed me that the claims might exceed the coverage amount I had, and told me that "If you hadn't been driving, this would never have happened".  Yeah.  Nobody got cited, it wasn an ACCIDENT.  That's what insurance is for.  So, I've been left with a nasty tast in my mouth by insurance companies.

Insurance companies are nothing more than a legalized mafia....

I'm inclined to agree.

I *despise* class action suits

I normally don't like them either, Baker.  "Class action suit" calls to mind images of ambulance chasing attorneys.  but this...this is a little different.

 

What I DON'T want, though, is for companies to go ahead and take future lawsuits like this into consideration when they figure my premiums. That just means I am paying for coverage I won't get.

And I understand that.  However, the people in this suit HAD hurricane coverage that they thought would pay out for the loss of their homes.  Now they're finding that the insurance companies have found a loophole and are saying that the damage was done by FLOOD, not by hurricane, so therefore they weren't covered by that and don't have to pay.  THAT'S bull.

 

What are the rules in that part of the world -- is having insurance required for home ownership? If so, what kind of coverage? What are the premiums like? What do renters have to have?

I have renter's insurance.  We live in military housing, and whilst it's not required, it's a very, very good idea.  We have $50,000 worth of coverage and it costs us about $120 every 6 months.  I can't speak for homeowners insurance because I've never had any, but I DO know a little about renters policies.

I hope the Attorney General of Mississippi is merely looking at insurance companies trying to weasel out of what is legitimately owed and not trying to muscle money out of them for customers who chose cheaper plans that weren't as comprehensive. If that is what they are doing, Good On 'Em!

I think that's exactly the case.  People were told they had insurance the covered 'Hurricane damage'.  Now that they're making claims for said 'hurricane damage', they're being told that their homes were destroyed by a flood, and that they're not covered for that.  Like I said, I think that's horse-poo, and I really do think it's a way for the insurance companies to weasel out of paying out on legitimate claims. 

heard somewhere that the AG of Louisiana is actually going after insurance companies (as an industry) to cover people who weren't even insured... that (to me) is nothing less than government theft.

Oh hell yes!  If people don't have coverage, then that's on them.  I'm sorry to take such a hard line on it, but....if they didn't have insurance, then they didn't have insurance.  It wouldnt be any different of they were driving without insurance and got into an accident - we wouldn;t look at them and say "so, you didn't have insurance and you lost your car...well, that's okay, we'll just sue 5 of the major companies for failing to provide you with a policy and we'll get you a payout".

I don't mind my premiums going up a little if it means that people are getting what they owed with regards to their claims.  I DO mind people thinking that even though they weren't covered because they didn't have a policy, that they should get a payout too.  That just perpetuates the entitlement factor we've been talking about.

(now that I've said that, I predict that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton will make a stand and claim that insurance companies are racist because a lot of poor black people in Louisiana and Mississippi didn't have any insurance)

don't know, honestly. I think people should get what they pay for. It's my understanding that home owner's insurance only pays for wind damage from hurricianes. They most certainly shouldn't be paying the bill for houses that were flooded by secondary factors, like rain and overflow from other sources. If the insurance companies can show in court that these people weren't paying for water damage coverage, I don't think they should be made the scapegoats. After all, FEMA has offered flood insurance to supplement what insurance companies don't offer. My worry is if these people win, we are all going to pay. Insurance companies will take losses like this into consideration when they come up with our payments, and we'll end up paying higher for stuff that we will eventually end up paying lawyers to get for us. I *despise* class action suits. I think it sucks when a single law firm gets millions or billions while each person gets a pittance. I think a lot of lawyers have seen this as a feeding frenzy. Don't think for a moment that this will come out of the pockets of the companies in question. Every thin dime will be passed on to you and me. Don't get me wrong, if they find there was anything confusing about what 'hurricaine' damage was, I'm all for the insurance companies paying. What I DON'T want, though, is for companies to go ahead and take future lawsuits like this into consideration when they figure my premiums. That just means I am paying for coverage I won't get.

Hey baker go read reply #4. A very valid point was brought up. "If" you have bought a home in a "flood prone" area (such as new orleans) 9 times out of 10 you are "required" to buy flood insurance. The only reason I know this is having bought my current home 3 yrs ago it sits "just" inside an area on a map that is marked as "flood plane". Now my area has not had a flood in all of the area's "recorded" history. But they "still" required us to get flood insurance or no house loan.

I disagree with you on one point. That flooding was "part and parcel" of Katrina. And as such should damn well be covered under "hurricane" damage. The Mississippi run over? Not covered under hurricane insurance, and shouldn't be. But the leeves broke "because" of Katrina. They didn't just fail or have the river over-run them. They were destroyed by "hurricane" Katrina. If that's not hurricane damage then I don't know what is.

If homes were destroyed because the levees broke, shouldn't whoever is responsible for the levees have to pay for the damage caused because of that?

I assume the levee owner has insurance that would pay for hurricane damage?

I assume the levee owner has insurance that would pay for hurricane damage?

The levees and flood walls are owned by the taxpayers, and we are paying.. and paying.. and paying. ;~D

I know that one of the companies that was named is the company that I have my insurance from. They very clearly told me when I got my insurance (two years ago) that any damage caused by flooding was not covered, and that INCLUDED flooding in a hurricane. I mean, they repeatedly spelled it out to me--probably for this very reason.

I live on the 8th floor, so I wasn't too bothered...

After talking to the billing people at some of the ambulance services I've worked at, I've come to the conclusion that "deadbeat" status should be given to all insurance carriers of all kinds. No matter what the state or service, the insurance company "accounts receivable" were usually around 3 months backed up.

If an insurance agent ever complains that people need to pay their premiums to the agent can pay their bills, just laugh at them and say, "as if you were planning paying your bills this month!" ;~D

"And I understand that. However, the people in this suit HAD hurricane coverage that they thought would pay out for the loss of their homes. "

But the point in the flood ommission is to keep people like us from paying over and over for people who rebuild houses that flood over and over. If these people didn't read their policy, and didn't realize hurricane damage didn't cover flooding from the hurricane, then they are getting paid out for stuff they didn't buy.

If they win, that just means that the pencil pushers in insurance companies will just hedge their bets by raising premiums to the level that covers floods, and they STILL won't cover floods. That way, when they are sued, they don't lose money, and lawyers make a fortune while people make a pittance.

If homes were destroyed because the levees broke, shouldn't whoever is responsible for the levees have to pay for the damage caused because of that?

I read where they are already planning to sue the contractors of the levees.

The following response is based on my personal Hurricane "survivor" experience ( Hugo, Bertha, Fran, and Floyd );

A standard homeowners policy does not cover flooding, period, the Federal Government underwrites the only available flood insurance, and it's not cheap. the reasoning is to deter building in flood prone areas.

Here in Eastern NC, lenders require Flood insurance if you build in the 100 year flood plain, or coastal areas, it's just a fact of life.

I assume a little grandstanding on those AG's part is more of a political stand than "sticking up for the little guy", and granted, insurance companies will seek a loop hole in a nano-second, this one is very well spelled out in coastal communities ( at least here, and I can't imagine why it would be any different on the gulf coast ).

Have no fear tho, our glorious Federal Government will come to the rescue, those flooded will be offered "Buyouts", the property will be reverted to open land, donated to the local government with the stipulation that no permanent structure can ever be built ( we have several areas here that are essentially parks that used to be thriving neigborhoods, one area in particular used to have over 100 single family homes, and a 250 unit apartment complex. Only 3 houses remain, and they refused the buyout, and are now holding out for a local buyout, if they ever settle my town plans a public access golf course....)

(now that I've said that, I predict that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton will make a stand and claim that insurance companies are racist because a lot of poor black people in Louisiana and Mississippi didn't have any insurance)

I predict that your prediction will come true. .

I disagree with you on one point. That flooding was "part and parcel" of Katrina. And as such should damn well be covered under "hurricane" damage. The Mississippi run over? Not covered under hurricane insurance, and shouldn't be. But the leeves broke "because" of Katrina. They didn't just fail or have the river over-run them. They were destroyed by "hurricane" Katrina. If that's not hurricane damage then I don't know what is.

Excellent point, drmiler!

I was just scanning this article, and for some bizarre reason I thought that the first sentence said, "The state of Mississippi is suing 5 major insurance providers for damages done by hurricane Katrina."

Lesson of this post?

Never scan.

To my knowledge NO flooding is covered at all. Whether that be from a hurricane or anything else. I don't even think storm surge is covered, is it?

This to me isn't an issue of people not getting what they paid for, rather people who didn't know what they were paying for. Worse, many of these people are from areas where flood insurance is the norm. They really don't have an excuse other than the fact maybe they thought they'd be able to pull off a lawsuit like this.

If homes were destroyed because the levees broke, shouldn't whoever is responsible for the levees have to pay for the damage caused because of that?

See Ted's response to that one.

know that one of the companies that was named is the company that I have my insurance from. They very clearly told me when I got my insurance (two years ago) that any damage caused by flooding was not covered, and that INCLUDED flooding in a hurricane. I mean, they repeatedly spelled it out to me--probably for this very reason.

I'm sure that there are agents who are honest and upfront and who will tell people that.  However, there are those who will not. 

What good is Hurricane insurance if it doesn't cover the damage done by a hurricane? Last time I checked, storm surge and rainfall was part and parcel of a hurricane.  How is the damage assessed?  do people get a partial payout for wind damage, or does the entire policy become null and void as soon as there's flooding?

If these people didn't read their policy, and didn't realize hurricane damage didn't cover flooding from the hurricane, then they are getting paid out for stuff they didn't buy.

Not necessarily. Can they not recieve payment for the damage done by the high winds?

 

I read where they are already planning to sue the contractors of the levees

And so the litigation chain begins......

assume a little grandstanding on those AG's part is more of a political stand than "sticking up for the little guy", and granted, insurance companies will seek a loop hole in a nano-second, this one is very well spelled out in coastal communities ( at least here, and I can't imagine why it would be any different on the gulf coast ).

yes, the insurance companies will back out as soon as they get a chance; they're profit motivated and this hurricane is going to cost them....so of course they'll look for a way out.  That, however, is unfair to the policy holdres who paid their premium every month, thinking that if a hurricane hit they'd at least be covered for the wind damage.

 

I predict that your prediction will come true.

We'll see.......!

 

Lesson of this post? Never scan.

Hehehe....lesson learned!

 

To my knowledge NO flooding is covered at all. Whether that be from a hurricane or anything else. I don't even think storm surge is covered, is it?

I don't know.  I'll go check today, though....all this has raised a few questions for me about hurricane insurance and what exactly is covered by it.

The agent that they interviewed a day or two ago said that hurricane damage was basically wind damage, and anything else they covered beyond flooding.

I don't mean to be crass, but I don't WANT them to cover flooding. I think everyone here knows that there are idiots all over the country whose house floods every ten years or so, just because they keep building in flood prone areas. The losses insurance companies take on people like that are spread out over OUR premiums. Is it fair that we pick safe places to live, and then have to pay higher insurance because of people who don't?

Like the people in California who insist on building 2 million dollar homes on the sides of hills that slide off every few years. It just simply isn't fair that I and others like me have to absorb the cost of other people's negligence.

That said, I know that New Orleans and the Mississippi flood plain isn't usually so bad in these particular areas, and I think it sucks, but that's what FEMA flood insurance is for. If you think insurance companies suck NOW, wait until after a few greedy lawyers force them to absorbe BILLIONS in damage that people weren't paying premiums for.

The agent that they interviewed a day or two ago said that hurricane damage was basically wind damage, and anything else they covered beyond flooding.

Thank you, that answered my question.

I can understand your not wanting them to cover flooding. I really, really do. People who insist on building and then re-building in flood prome areas make our premiums go up, so everybody suffers for one person's bad choices.

How can an adjuster decide what damage was done by winds and what was done by flooding? Surely the people who had hurricane insurance should recieve some kind of pro-rated payout? Not ALL of the damage was done by the storm surge, the winds had a lot to do with it as well. Is it right to deny a person's claim completely? I don't think so, and I think that's what the AG is complaining about.

I guess some houses you can tell. The ones they were looking at during that interview were all still standing, and you could see the water line up around the roof. As for the ones that are just gone, or completely fallen in, I have no idea.

I saw an interview of John Stossell ( ABC 20/20 ) on the FOX News shortly after Katrina. His specialty is the "Your Money" segment, where he exposes government waste, BUT, FOX was interviewing him about a house he owns somewhere on the East Coast, that government insurance had rebuilt twice due to storm damage.
His response was the insurance negated any risk, his rental income far outweighed the premium expense, and he could NEVER rebuild without the Govt underwriting.

Something is wrong when risk is removed by tax dollars.......