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

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: PolishProud

Lott is a political scumbag. He was paid for his loss by the flood insurance & now he wants to be paid a second time by Allstate. He is nothing but a greedy thief who wants to profit from his loss.


23 posted on 02/23/2007 5:18:22 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PolishProud

Houses were destroyed in a hurricane.

The insurance company has chosen, on its own, to call it all "flood damage". How do they know this? Wind certainly was also a part of the destruction.
Beyond that, what, precisely, is a flood? STORM damage is not a flood, unless its water rising from a river. Is a storm surge, which is wind-driven water, a flood?

The insurance company, on its own, has decided that it is, and that therefore they don't have to pay.

The insurance companies, on their own, have decided that all wind damage in the case of houses also destroyed by storm surges, will be disregarded completely, and that it's ALL flood damages.

Nice try. But the lawmakers may have a different view of the definitions of those words. The insurance company doesn't get to determine all on its own that 100% of destruction when there is a storm surge is caused by the surge. If the house was already ripped apart by wind damage, and wind-driven rain, and was THEN washed away by storm surge, the insurance company doesn't get to ignore the other two sources of damage and simply assert, for its own reasons, that 100% of the loss will be assigned to storm surge and 0% to the other factors.

Sure, they WANT to, and that is what the people with the legal power to define words: the legislators, are pounding down on their asses. Insurance companies think that they have the right to collect premiums but can be very, very particular about when they decide to pay out. They think their determination that 100% of damage is flood damage, and that wind and rain can be ignored because of flood damage, is the final word on the issue. They're wrong.

If this were the Mississippi River rising, it would be an easy case. That's a flood. However, if a tornado ripped apart the houses and the river flooded, the insurance company doesn't just get to set the rule on its own that the tornado and wind damage will be totally ignored and the loss entirely assigned to the flood. Sure, they can TRY, but it's no surprise, then, that the lawmakers reset the rules for them to make it fair for policyholders.

Likewise with a hurricane. Wind, rain, flying debris AND storm surge. It's nice that the insurance companies want to ignore the first three factors and assign everything to the catastrophic storm surge. It's nice that they want to call the storm surge a "flood" (is it?). It's nice that they want to hold the line and not even PARTIALLY compensate for wind and rain damage. But it's not going to work, because contracts are subject to law, and law is decided by politics, and people don't like insurance companies deciding all by themselves that they're going to define all storm damage as flood damage and not pay.

State Farm has already decided to get out of the insurance business in Alabama. Fine. Other companies will get the Alabama profits instead, and will set their premia accordingly. Or NO insurer will insure, and the government will do it instead.

The real bottom line is that if you collect billions in premia, when the time comes to pay, interpreting words to avoid payment is going to get you thrown into a skillet and fried like a catfish. The insurance companies needed to be a lot smarter here. SOME damage was attributable to wind and rain, and they should have made partial payments on all those policies. Calling everything flood damage is an exercise of power that invites a greater exercise of power to slap you down.


48 posted on 02/23/2007 7:49:43 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PolishProud

Lott is a disgrace.

Why?

If you have to ask ...


90 posted on 02/23/2007 3:13:13 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: PolishProud
"Your comment that you will dedicate your next term of office to 'bringing down State Farm and the industry' through all means available to you, including legislation designed to harm the property/casualty insurance industry, was very unsettling, to say the least."

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.

94 posted on 02/23/2007 3:59:08 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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