I am sorry I did not explain further.
Folks who had flood insurance were told their homes were damaged by wind: Therefore they were not covered.
Folks that had Hurricane insurance were told their homes were damaged by flood: Therefore they were not covered.
So the Con being played is in the middle of the hurricane at some point they were briefly covered just after their roofs blew off and just before the rains or flooding hit.. Or those who were first subject to the flooding had insurance for that brief moment between the time the floods came and the hurricane blew their roofs off.
How disgustingly Clintonesqe
"These people were told that there home wasn't damaged by the hurricane - it was "wind damage" - so they weren't covered! OR it was "water damage", not FLOOD ..."
Many say they were told by their insurance agent that they did not need flood ... Some with repairable houses (damaged by wind alone) have had to leave the ...
risingfromruin.msnbc.com/2005/11/bay_st_louis_mi_1.html
http://searchwarp.com/swa23988.htm Many of the homes destroyed by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina were ruined by deep water flooding which caused irreversible structural damage. Many people would assume that flooding caused by hurricanes would be something that insurance would cover, however many insurance companies have been rejecting these claims insisting that flood damage isn’t covered in regular policies.
In addition, there have also been many emerging stories that are claiming that carriers have been lying and attempting to bribe their customers into signing waivers that would admit their homes were destroyed by flooding and not the hurricane. In other cases the insurance carriers were trying to claim the homes were destroyed by wind and not the water.
W