Quote:
Originally Posted by ERCougar
A name, an article, one of your ultra-left blogs, ANYTHING that states there were many who were covered by flood insurance but not by homeowner's insurance. Or even cites a single example.
I didn't say homeowners covers floods. It doesn't. And that's the problem in Katrina. Most people got homeowners because it's required for a mortgage. They decided to roll the dice on flood coverage and are pissed because they lost. Somehow they've hoodwinked you into blaming their insurer for not covering them for something they didn't pay for. Do you provide legal services to people who don't pay you?
|
Nobody said homeowners covers flood damage. I don't know why you suggested otherwise. The instances you are citing are legitimate complaints by people who suffered real damage associated with a hurricane but were denied coverage because the insurance company claimed the damage was primarily related to something other than what they insured against. The people in New Orleans haven't hoodwinked anyone, and I find it laughable that you would suggest that their stories are nothing but a sham.
Anyone who has spent any time at all dealing with insurance companies knows that this is their modus operandi, particularly in poorer neighborhoods where it is easier to get away with. As a doctor, you should be familiar with such instances and shouldn't be as dismissive.
So you know, approximately 67% of people in New Orleans carried flood insurance according to an article in the Times Picayune (citing federal statistics).
http://www.vendomeplace.org/press031...insurance.html
That is far higher than the percentage who own flood insurance in the Midwest. So again, where is the outrage for the Midwest that existed in Louisiana?
I forgot- those Midwesterners are just so darn polite.