Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Lott Floods the Zone
WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | February 23, 2007 | Kimberley A.. Strassel

Posted on 02/23/2007 4:30:45 AM PST by PolishProud

One big question when Democrats took over Congress was which industry would be first to feel the new majority's populist rage. Oil? Pharma? Banks? Corporate America just got its answer, direct from the angriest man to have been empowered in the past election: Republican Sen. Trent Lott. Like many Gulf Coast residents, Mr. Lott was soon reminded by his insurer, State Farm, that his policy only covered wind damage--not flood damage.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial
KEYWORDS: katrina; senlott; statefarm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last
Senator Lott's $350.000 beach front house(one of three homes)was washed away by Katrina and despite insurance that excluded flood coverage, the senator and other political beach front high rollers want State Farm to cough up coverage. And they did under threat of a law suit.
1 posted on 02/23/2007 4:30:47 AM PST by PolishProud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PolishProud
The real issue is that the water is not from flooding but is wind driven water. I live on the beach in Florida and while I am up on pilings, the insurance companies have tried to screw over alot of people. My neighbor lived in a prefirm single story house that was destroyed when the hurricane ripped through a window and tore out the roof. The water came in later. Two and a half years after Ivan and he still does not have his insurance money because of this issue.
It is not a flood, it is wind driven water.
2 posted on 02/23/2007 4:34:20 AM PST by ritewingwarrior (Where does free speech end, and sedition begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PolishProud
They did not only under threat of lawsuit Lott was also threatening to use his position to im[lement new laws to punish the insurance industry.

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.

3 posted on 02/23/2007 4:36:12 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Have a nice day. Durka durka durka...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PolishProud
Trent Lott Sponsored Retroactive(?) Flood Insurance Bill
4 posted on 02/23/2007 4:38:46 AM PST by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PolishProud
"...and despite insurance that excluded flood coverage, the senator and other political beach front high rollers want State Farm to cough up coverage."

Lott and others paid their premiums, they deserve to get reimbursed and the insurance companies should be prosecuted for fraud.

5 posted on 02/23/2007 4:43:27 AM PST by DaGman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Lott was also threatening to use his position to implement new laws to punish the insurance industry.

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?

6 posted on 02/23/2007 4:45:25 AM PST by gridlock (Isn't it peculiar that matter what the problem, the government's solution is always "more taxes".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Lott and others paid their premiums, they deserve to get reimbursed and the insurance companies should be prosecuted for fraud.

They didn't pay for flood insurance. That's the point. If they wanted flood insurance they would have had to pay a rider.

7 posted on 02/23/2007 4:49:07 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

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.


8 posted on 02/23/2007 4:49:12 AM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

They all had the option to buy flood insurance, too, I think. But, this nonsense cuts off insurance for many.


9 posted on 02/23/2007 4:52:33 AM PST by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

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?


10 posted on 02/23/2007 4:54:25 AM PST by gridlock (Isn't it peculiar that matter what the problem, the government's solution is always "more taxes".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: dawn53

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.


11 posted on 02/23/2007 4:55:06 AM PST by ritewingwarrior (Where does free speech end, and sedition begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt
But, this nonsense cuts off insurance for many.

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!

12 posted on 02/23/2007 4:56:40 AM PST by gridlock (Isn't it peculiar that matter what the problem, the government's solution is always "more taxes".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

"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.


13 posted on 02/23/2007 4:58:28 AM PST by ritewingwarrior (Where does free speech end, and sedition begin?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

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.


14 posted on 02/23/2007 4:58:31 AM PST by gridlock (Isn't it peculiar that matter what the problem, the government's solution is always "more taxes".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gridlock

Perfectly said.


15 posted on 02/23/2007 5:04:16 AM PST by jws3sticks (Hillary can take a very long walk on a very short pier, anytime, and the sooner the better!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

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!


16 posted on 02/23/2007 5:04:20 AM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gridlock
Mr. Lott's beachfront property in Pascagoula--one of three homes he owned--was swept away entirely by Hurricane Katrina's waters. Like many Gulf Coast residents, Mr. Lott was soon reminded by his insurer, State Farm, that his policy only covered wind damage--not flood damage. The senator surely knew that, which is why he'd also purchased federal flood insurance. According to his flood policy that was in effect when Katrina hit, he was covered up to $350,000 in flood damages, and he presumably collected in full. (Sen. Lott's office didn't return my call.)

So. The Senator had insurance but is still going after State Farm? Is he a democrat? /s

17 posted on 02/23/2007 5:05:00 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dawn53

"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!?


18 posted on 02/23/2007 5:05:55 AM PST by poobear (Carter & Clinton - 'The Latter Day Church Of Jew Haters & Horndogs')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ritewingwarrior

Do you really think Lott's home was sub-standard housing?


19 posted on 02/23/2007 5:10:41 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DaGman
Lott and others paid their premiums, they deserve to get reimbursed and the insurance companies should be prosecuted for fraud.

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.

20 posted on 02/23/2007 5:13:28 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Samoans: The (low) wage slaves in the Pelosi-Starkist complex.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-103 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson