I am curious- why no criticism of the people in the Midwest who live in flood plains?

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Now in a rural area like mine, these really unsophisticated folks for the most part figure that if the shit hits the fan they have to figure something out themselves. In urban areas, where people are much more acclimated to government services, they see government as a parent and wonder why everything isn't taken care of.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Serious question. Has living in the DC area dimmed your view of African-Americans?

Because your response to these threads begs the question.

eom

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by creekster

I should probabyl read the thread more carefully before popping off, but hey, why bother?

Typically to get flood coverage yuou need HO coverage first. I suspect that somewhere somehow it can be done otherwsie, but I am not aware of it. (this is residential first party we are talking about, not commercial.)

People try to urge carriers to consider covered perils the cause of laoss all the time. I have many times heard people joke that their EQ insurance is the butane lighter they keep by the gas line.

No, this isn't the case. To get a mortgage, you typically are required to have HO insurance, and if you are in flood plain you are typically required to get flood insurance too. This isn't always the case. HO insurance is typically more expensive than flood insurance (depending on the zone FEMA has placed you in), so when insurance payments lapse, it isn't uncommon for the HO insurance policy to lapse first.

Don't tell ERCougar this, though. He believes in the history of mankind no single person has ever had flood insurance without HO insurance.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, this isn't the case. To get a mortgage, you typically are required to have HO insurance, and if you are in flood plain you are typically required to get flood insurance too. This isn't always the case. HO insurance is typically more expensive than flood insurance (depending on the zone FEMA has placed you in), so when insurance payments lapse, it isn't uncommon for the HO insurance policy to lapse first.

Don't tell ERCougar this, though. He believes in the history of mankind no single person has ever had flood insurance without HO insurance.

COuld be that the policy periods don't line up, but that is different than saying you don't get HO you only get flood, and quite honestly should nto be very common.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You want me to give you the name of a single person who has flood insurance and not homeowners insurance? Really?

And who said homeowners insurance covers floods?

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?

[Cali Coug]

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

4000+ s.f. home in Utah - insurance = $540/year
Earthquake insurance for same home = $800/year

That is why most people in the Salt Lake Valley don't have earthquake assurance and Cali is generally correct in that most don't have it.

Not only that, but earthquake insurance typically does not cover masonry damage, which is the most common type of damage.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Not only that, but earthquake insurance typically does not cover masonry damage, which is the most common type of damage.

And not only that, but each of the insurance policies we have discussed have limits on what they pay out. Insruance is a step, but even those who have insurance and did everything right frequently find that they are screwed in the end.