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 ...
Lott had flood insurance, too. But never let that get in the way of a good Trent bashing.
Of course you are right. However, I was alluding to the poor effect of government interferance.
Lott's house was old. Can't remember how old, but it had existed there for more than 50 years.
MS Ping (i have not pinged the list. gotta run.)
Mississippi ping
Actually that's not so. An insurance policy is a contract of adhesion which means that any ambiguity in the wording is construed against the draftee (the insurance company). That is the legal principal.
When they exclude flood you can be sure that the wording has been scrutinized by attorneys,approved by regulators, and likely tested in the courts. There is plenty of case law on flood exclusions that have crafted the wording.
This issue is now in a political environment making legal precedent much less important.
Homes that stood for nearly 200 years and weathered every storm with minimal damage were compelely leveled by Katrina. The wind arrives long before the water and that is one the central issues.
Please, if you wish to make comments on this issue the least you can do is seek some first hand knowledge. The national media has done a horrible job reporting this. Just like most every other issue they see.
In fact, Katrina DID NOT hit New Orleans as the media continues to report. The flooding in New Orleans occured the day after the storm. Landfall was in my home town of Pass Christian.
Visit:
http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/16728676.htm
You will get a better look at the issues.
Then why is he suing? I can't wait to see you explain that.
Not necessarily. There were many homes damaged by Katrina that were never flooded. There were homes that were torn apart by the wind, then LATER the storm surge, which was just like a tsunami, washed away the debris. There are folks who had videotapes showing just that, and STILL the insurance companies wouldn't pay up. THAT'S why folks were angry and were suing.
There were many who were also angry because they were told that they didn't NEED flood insurance because they were not in a flood zone. Some insurance agents encouraged their clients to buy flood insurance anyway, and they were criticized for selling un-necessary coverage. Heh. The folks who did buy it were happy they'd done so.
Much of the flooding that took place was several miles inland from the coastline. The surge pushed up into Biloxi Bay and the Bay of St. Louis, and from there into all the little inland bayous. THAT'S where a lot of the damage took place, and those folks just had no idea what was coming. This didn't even happen during Hurricane Camille, and that's what folks had used as a benchmark since 1969. Katrina actually followed the same track as Camille, but the storm surge was not the same. This one had the storm surge of a Category 5, even though by the time she made landfall, her winds were only Category 3.
Lott is a disgrace.
Why?
If you have to ask ...
Again, not necessarily. The way my sister's agent explained it to her was that basically, what she had, and most others as well, was a 'fire' policy. He said if that her house had caught fire and burned just before the storm hit, she'd have been covered completely. Otherwise, she didn't have full damage coverage. She had three houses on one piece of land. One was about 150' from the water's edge, and about 20' off the water. It was a concrete block house on a concrete slab, and when the storm was over, she had 20" of sand and seaweed on the slab. She had another small cottage just behind that one, and she never found any pieces of it. The third house was about 350' off the water, but it was picked up off its foundation by the storm surge and moved about 30'. That wouldn't have been so bad, except a tree blew into one side of it. I think their policy DID cover that.
The entire coast was NOT considered a flood zone, remarkable as that seems by some. Most homes and businesses were 15 to 20' off the water, and even in Camille, the storm surge didn't wash them away like Katrina did. The Interstate is 6 miles from the coastline, but parts of it were underwater because the storm surged pushed up into the Bays and then into the bayous.
Even where there were storm surges along the coastline, they were not uniform across the area. My sister's house was washed away, and it was 20' above sea level, but her neighbor's was not, and it was at the same level. The neighbor's house did sustain water damage, but it stood. A block down the road to the east, another house, also 20' above sea level, but about 200' inland sustained MAJOR water damage, while the house just to the east of that one didn't have ANY water in it.
It was a strange storm.
Your friend's experience is one reason why folks were so angry. They knew they had coverage, and thought they'd be able to use that money to remodel, or replace what they had. They discovered that they had to fight, tooth and nail for what turned out to be piddling amounts of money, and they felt betrayed.
His Vacancy's suggestion for a Republican campaign slogan:
Vote Republican in '08, so you can be fully compensated if your underinsured beachfront mansion is damaged in a storm.
"People always want something for nothing. Beach front property owners are no different."\
But in this case, as with public education, roads, and airports, the insurance support actually produces a greater overall economic pie than we would have by not having it.
The rest of the people of the country are NOT subsidizing the extravagance at all. Because the booming economy added by having those high-value areas generates trillions in additional value, which is then taxed. Take the $2 trillion slice of the economy that is flood plain and Gulf Coast life...the most valuable property on the coasts and up and down the Mississippi/Missouri/Ohio system, and hit it with the 40% or so tax rates, all told...that's about $800 billion into the treasury that wouldn't be there if we didn't live in those riskier areas, and people wouldn't if they couldn't get the insurance.
Federal Flood insurance makes that additional prosperity possible, which in turn makes the lives better for those people of modest means everywhere else in the country than their lives wouldn't be if we shrank our economy by $2 trillion by driving everyone from the flood plains for insurance reasons.
"But that's not the way it really is. Seafront property is ENORMOUSLY more valuable than inland property."
"That is because it is subsidized."
No, it is because most people find living on warm ocean seafronts, and vacationing there, more desirable than any other land whatever. It's the OCEAN that gives it the value, not the subsidy. The insurance subsidy merely makes it possible for people and businesses to far more easily and readily live next to the dangerous ocean, thereby pumping up the economy.
Federal Flood Insurance dramatically improves the economy by allowing full exploitation of coastal and floodplain resources and their intrinsic value.
The private sector cannot provide the insurance because it's not profitable - given the certitude of destruction.
But the destruction and rebuilding, overall, is economically far more efficient than not building at all, because the premium on being on the ocean is many multiples the cost of rebuilding.
Law is politics.
"Your friend's experience is one reason why folks were so angry. They knew they had coverage, and thought they'd be able to use that money to remodel, or replace what they had. They discovered that they had to fight, tooth and nail for what turned out to be piddling amounts of money, and they felt betrayed."
And that is why Lott and the government are going to do something about it. If the insurance companies will not voluntarily do the reasonable thing here, they will be compelled by law to do it. Go too far, and piss off enough people in a democracy, and democracy will pay you back by making you do the right thing. Too bad it's come down to that.
> I don't think any house, old or new, survived the 25-foot storm surge in Mississippi. <
Not quite correct.
Beauvoir, the post-Civil War home of Jefferson Davis, was still standing after Katrina -- although it did suffer very heavy damage. I think it may have done better than any other home along that stretch of beach. And it was one of three homes there to have escaped major damage from Hurricane Camille in 1969.
All of which goes to show that construction tradesmen built sturdier houses back in the 19th century than they build today!
> Go too far, and piss off enough people in a democracy, and democracy will pay you back by making you do the right thing. <
Exactly. Except that I would put "the right thing" in quotes. I'm reminded of perhaps the main reason I'm very glad the USA is a REPUBLIC instead of a democracy. Thank goodness we have a government of laws, a system of ordered liberty, where it is difficult for a demagogue like Lott to trample the contract rights of insurance companies and the economic rights of their shareholders.
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.