Posted on 02/23/2007 4:30:45 AM PST by PolishProud
Also note that Lott's brother-in-law, a trial lawyers, made some majo0re $$$ off of the deal. Just like he did when he sued big tobacco.
Lott and others paid their premiums, they deserve to get reimbursed and the insurance companies should be prosecuted for fraud.
What is he going to call it, the "Bail Out The Filthy Rich From Their Own Stupid Mistakes Act of 2007"?
If you have a house on the Gulf Coast, it's gonna get flooded. If you can't handle it, build inland. If you wanna look at the pretty water, build cheap, so you won't have so much to replace.
This used to be obvious. Now people are so protected from the consequences of their own stupid decisions that they build Million-dollar houses on the sand. Why should anybody be compensated for being so reckless?
They didn't pay for flood insurance. That's the point. If they wanted flood insurance they would have had to pay a rider.
I live in Florida, too. I have State Farm homeowner's, but I also carry flood insurance. Wind driven or not, up until now, State Farm's definition of "flood" has always been "rising" water. That's why we took out flood insurance because of the possibility of rising water from storm surge.
They all had the option to buy flood insurance, too, I think. But, this nonsense cuts off insurance for many.
Not only did they build mansions on the beach (stupid), they cheaped out on their insurance (really stupid).
If you really want to build a million dollar house on the beach on the Gulf Coast, and you want to insure it, you should pay whatever it costs to insure it.
Unfortunately, our insurance system is rigged to favor the stupid, so even if you buy the insurance, your stupid decisions will still be heavily subsidized by the rest of us. But, given that, there really is no excuse for not buying the insurance that is available.
If you decide not to, why should you be compensated for your compounded stupidity?
The issue is that when you also have flood insurance, like my neighbor did, the insurance companies fight back and forth as to who is responsible. 2.5 years and no resolution and the attorney's hired to sue for this poor old man, who lost his entire life, has no time frame to resolve it. I am very pro business but this is total crap.
If a house can't be insured, it probably should not be built.
If you really want to live on the beach where you're gonna get flooded out, build a shack and live happily on the beach. When that one gets washed away, build a new shack, and don't complain about it.
This isn't rocket science!
"If you decide not to, why should you be compensated for your compounded stupidity?"
Wow, spoken from someone who doesn't live near the beautiful ocean. Really the mansions and things that were built on the beach survived fairly well. The real problem in the south, is that the majority of homes that were destroyed, were older, and prior to new building codes. My house withstood the hurricane just fine. My house is built to the very best of codes and I had no problems with two direct hits.
We will probably not see the same catastrophic loss in housing again in areas that were hit, because all of the substandard housing was destroyed. This very fact nullifies the insurance industry's arguments.
If the courts can't operate efficiently, that's the government's fault. But the fact that people bought the wrong insurance is not the government's fault.
Perfectly said.
I know that's a disadvantage to having both...having to figure out what is flood and what is wind damage. No insurance company is your friend. Unfortunately, you can be a loyal customer for years and once you make a claim....they'll drop you like a hot potato, or fight you every step of the way. Sad but true!
So. The Senator had insurance but is still going after State Farm? Is he a democrat? /s
"I live in Florida, too. I have State Farm homeowner's, but I also carry flood insurance. Wind driven or not, up until now, State Farm's definition of "flood" has always been "rising" water. That's why we took out flood insurance because of the possibility of rising water from storm surge."
But, but, that makes sense!?
Do you really think Lott's home was sub-standard housing?
I have State Farm and my agent made it quite clear to me that water falling from the sky is covered, water from broken pipes is covered, water from a backed up sewer was covered (although they ammended the policy later to limit that). However, water from or along the ground is not(!) covered and if I want it covered I should buy a separate flood insurance policy.
This is like someone buying liability only auto coverage and then wanting to force the insurance company to pay for his car's damage in a wreck.
If the contract doesn't mean what it says, who can guarantee that next time there is a disaster the insurance companies won't get out and bribe Congress to retroactively change the contracts to say that wind damage isn't covered either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.