Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Loosyanna Legal Lamebrain Looters

2005-09-28

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Mississippi House Speaker Billy McCoy said the House would tackle the Gulf Coast insurance dilemma: thousands of people who lost their homes and have no separate flood insurance. "We can't make insurance companies do something that's not in their policies," McCoy said, "but ... we are going to take a lead role in doing anything we can."

Not so fast, Billy. Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood thinks otherwise. He is suing five insurance companies, asking a state court to void the plain language of policies and make the companies do what is not in those policies. Gee, will they have to condemn the property first? Isn't this kinda unfair?

Homeowner policies for hurricane damage specifically exclude damage caused by flooding, and for good reason: Flood damage is far more costly to insure. Hood seeks to invalidate those exclusions and force insurers to pay as much as $15 billion for flood damage. In his complaint, Hood makes the incredible claim that residents bought homeowner policies to insure against "any and all" hurricane damage "with the reasonable expectation that these policies would provide such coverage."

Posted by:Bobby

#8 Read your insurance policy! It clearly states that wind driven rain is covered. However, in the exclusions flood & surface water are excluded whether or not driven by wind. So basically, the flood from Lake Pontchartrain is not covered nor is the water from the storm surge. Both are surface water.

While everyone blames this on greedy insurance companies, keep in mind that if it is included as part of the policy, we all get to pay higher homeowners insurance premiums. I don't know about you, but mine are high enough. If poeple want to live in coastal areas, they should pay for coverage, not me.

Posted by: Ulaimble Hupiper8324 2005-09-28 20:30

#7 Read your insurance policy! It clearly states that wind driven rain is covered. However, in the exclusions flood & surface water are excluded whether or not driven by wind. So basically, the flood from Lake Pontchartrain is not covered nor is the water from the storm surge. Both are surface water.

While everyone blames this on greedy insurance companies, keep in mind that if it is included as part of the policy, we all get to pay higher homeowners insurance premiums. I don't know about you, but mine are high enough. If poeple want to live in coastal areas, they should pay for coverage, not me.

Posted by: Ulaimble Hupiper8324 2005-09-28 20:30

#6 When dealing with insurance co.watch your ass.They will do everything they can to avoid pay outs.Pay outs mean less profit and thats what insurance co. are all about.

Posted by: raptor 2005-09-28 19:33

#5 If the water comes from below, it's a flood. If the water comes from above, it's hurricane damage.

Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-28 19:16

#4 Insurance is contractual, with some state regulation on the side. To alter the policies by legislative action would constitute an ex-post-facto law, which is expressly forbidden in the Constitution. At least that is what I would argue....

Posted by: Mark E 2005-09-28 15:04

#3 Both Hood and McCoy need to immediately be arrested and relieved from their posts, what they have announced is clearly unlawful abuse of their Office.

Won't happem however, they seem to truly be above the law.

Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-09-28 14:53

#2 Just to play devil's advocate a little....

What constitutes flooding vs. Hurricane damage?

If I've got 6" of rain in my house cause the hurricane blew the roof off is that a flood, or hurricane damage? If a river or lake or ocean overflows it's banks and does in my house, that's a flood. But, if a rain storm breaks the windows and dumps water inside, is that a flood?

Insurance companies will use any possible way to weasle out of paying dime one if possible. Don't cry for them too much just yet.

Posted by: AlanC 2005-09-28 14:43

#1 Actually it is quite disgusting when led by public servants who heretofore had expressed no particular interest in the matter. Had phukwit a genuine concern and foresight he might have raised the issue previously and obtained greater clarity for all concerned with the end result being people would know with more certainty whether or not they were covered for the type of perils that has come to pass with Rita and Katrina.

Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-09-28 13:05

00:00