Thread: Told Ya

  1. #26
    Disillusioned Subscriber
    Steamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    Actually the wind only causes the storm surge to have waves. The storm surge is not caused by the winds. It is due to the extremely low air pressure at the eye of the hurricane sucking water up as if it were trying to suck through a straw. This causes a elevated water level compared to normal sea level. This is a a storm surge.
    And according to my insurance guy, if the damage is caused by water, it is a flood claim. If it rains so hard that your basement fills with water, it is flood insurance that pays not your actual HO. If your waterline breaks and fills up your house then it is still only covered under a flood policy. which is why even though my house sits on hill 10-15 ft above the lowest ground around I still have flood insurance. Granted it is pretty cheap but I still carry it.
    Therefore just because the wind drives the water doesn't make it wind damage, it is still flood damage.
    My policy says that if it comes from the ground, it's not covered under my homeowners. If it's a broken pipe, it's covered.
    Steve Gallagher
    IACOJ BOT
    ----------------------------
    "I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    If your waterline breaks and fills up your house then it is still only covered under a flood policy. which is why even though my house sits on hill 10-15 ft above the lowest ground around I still have flood insurance.
    In almost all cases, that is not true. A broken pipe is not a flood loss covered under the federal flood insurance program.

  3. #28
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default

    ok so bad example....what if my septic/sewer backs up? it comes from the groun
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  4. #29
    Disillusioned Subscriber
    Steamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrnea
    ok so bad example....what if my septic/sewer backs up? it comes from the groun
    My policy basically says if it's a plumbing issue, it's covered. If it's from ground runoff or stream flooding, I'm screwed.
    Steve Gallagher
    IACOJ BOT
    ----------------------------
    "I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes

  5. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default

    my policy covers contents for either of these incidents but not the structure.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  6. #31
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Read your policy again.

  7. #32
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Chrna is absolutely right. A strom surge is not a result of wind. If your house gets whacked by a storm surge, it is a flood. No way around it. Like george said, it is not difficult to tell the difference between wind damage and flood damage and what came first.

    If it rains so hard here that my basement fills up, I will break a water line and let it fill up some more.

    Arguing with Parafire is obviously of no use. He obviously already knows everything, can't be wrong, and doens't need things like logic or facts to evaluate a situation in the Gulf from his living room in Iowa.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  8. #33
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Diane E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Maryland (but always a Long Islander first)
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    If it rains so hard here that my basement fills up, I will break a water line and let it fill up some more.
    That's another reason why premiums are high -- insurance fraud.
    "When I was young, my ambition was to be one of the people who made a difference in this world. My hope is to leave the world a little better for my having been there."
    -- Jim Henson (1936 - 1990)

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    It was a joke, I'm kidding.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  10. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DianeC
    That's another reason why premiums are high -- insurance fraud.
    I'm told that insurance fraud is rampant in the hurricane areas.

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    I'm told that insurance fraud is rampant in the hurricane areas.
    Trust me, George; it's rampant in the non-hurricane areas as well.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefReason
    Trust me, George; it's rampant in the non-hurricane areas as well.
    CR
    I know. That's one big reason I have a job.

    What I'm talking about is upper level, super creative, I never would have thought of that, insurance fraud.

  13. #38
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Anyone who is taking advantage of this for personal gain in anyway should be dragged out onto main street by their ears and shot. People pretending to be refugees asking for money and handouts are my first choice for public execution, closely followed by those who try to scam their insurance company because they think it will get them off welfare.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  14. #39
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southeast Iowa
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire
    Chrna is absolutely right. A strom surge is not a result of wind. If your house gets whacked by a storm surge, it is a flood. No way around it. Like george said, it is not difficult to tell the difference between wind damage and flood damage and what came first.

    If it rains so hard here that my basement fills up, I will break a water line and let it fill up some more.

    Arguing with Parafire is obviously of no use. He obviously already knows everything, can't be wrong, and doens't need things like logic or facts to evaluate a situation in the Gulf from his living room in Iowa.

    You people amaze me....you actually believe that a category 4 hurricane with 100+ mph winds would not destroy the house prior to the arrival of a storm surge, and that the insurance company should be able to claim the house was destroyed by the flood, not the hurricane.

    I don't claim to know everything, and I can usually admit when I'm wrong. Logic, Facts, whatever....common sense and morality have a big part of my opinion on this. The bottom line is simple....the insurance companies DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO PAY! It's typical rhetoric from the insurance company, and it's bull. These people aren't trying to scam anyone...they want fair and just compensation for the home they insured that was ripped apart by the high winds of a hurricane, and just happened to get flooded.
    Last edited by parafire81; 09-16-2005 at 01:35 AM.

  15. #40
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southeast Iowa
    Posts
    158

    Default However...

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire
    Anyone who is taking advantage of this for personal gain in anyway should be dragged out onto main street by their ears and shot. People pretending to be refugees asking for money and handouts are my first choice for public execution, closely followed by those who try to scam their insurance company because they think it will get them off welfare.
    Amazingly, we do agree on this.

  16. #41
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parafire81
    You people amaze me....you actually believe that a category 4 hurricane with 100+ mph winds would not destroy the house prior to the arrival of a storm surge, and that the insurance company should be able to claim the house was destroyed by the flood, not the hurricane.

    I don't claim to know everything, and I can usually admit when I'm wrong. Logic, Facts, whatever....common sense and morality have a big part of my opinion on this. The bottom line is simple....the insurance companies DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO PAY! It's typical rhetoric from the insurance company, and it's bull. These people aren't trying to scam anyone...they want fair and just compensation for the home they insured that was ripped apart by the high winds of a hurricane, and just happened to get flooded.
    You amaze me.

    While you are correct that, of course, hurricane winds can destroy a home, what proof do you have that the insurance cos. "...DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO PAY!" ? You have none, save for one toothless guy that CNN dredged up.

    It's like people who purchase the cheapest auto insurance. Comprehensive and liability, but no collision. Then they get into a minor accident and want the collision damage fixed. It ain't happening. It'e like people who live in an apartment and refuse to pay about $200 a year to get $20,000 of coverage for their contents. Then there is a fire and they want the building insurance co. to pay for their stuff. It ain't happening. As I said before, the insurance co. is a business, it is not a social service agency. You get the coverage you pay for and that is not an opinion. That is a matter of insurance law.

  17. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default

    It seems to me parafire that you are one of these guys that think that one of the greatest evils in the world is the big corporations that make money. You seem to believe that they do so at the expense of the "little guy". But the simple rule of economics holds true, if they actually treated their employees and their patrons like crap, then they wouldn't have any. It would drive people to their competitors.
    I have never had a problem with any of my insurance companies not wanting to pay. They have wanted to investigate the claim which actually takes a while. They have to assess the damage and do their best to determine how much was actually lost. Its very easy to say well, I had a $10,000 plasma TV that I just bought and wouldn't you know it, I lost my receipt as well in the damage. Do you get the point. They cant just come out and willy nilly write checks. They have to go slowly and methodically to ensure each claim is properly paid.
    People will get paid it may not be as quick as they want but those that have legitimate claims will get paid. Most will get the maximum coverage that they have. Some will not get paid because they didn't have the right coverage. Maybe they should sue their insurance guy for not telling them about it. (its always someone elses fault)
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  18. #43
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Hurricane Isabel destroyed my home back in 2003. Fortunately for me I had HO insurance and flood insurance. HO didn't pay a dime(they shouldn't have had to ), but my flood insurance policy paid off the structure and the contents. My house was at the beach. I would have been negligent had I not been properly insured. Everyone I know who has a house at or near the beach has flood insurance, It's widely known that HO won't pay for flood damage.

    Classic caveat emptor. I do feel for the folks that lost their homes, but the HO insurance companies don't owe any money for flood damage. Plain and simple.

  19. #44
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1

    Angry

    Okay, I don't post much but I gotta speak up on this.

    Parafire81, I know I shouldn't take your comments personally since you don't know me and you're speaking in ignorance, but nonetheless I'm insulted by them. I'm an EMT and a volunteer firefighter, and I've also been a professional insurance adjuster for 16 years. As GeorgeWendt has tried to point out logically, insurance companies are indeed in the business of paying claims. In fact I could lose my job if I were to try not paying a claim that appeared to be fair and reasonable.

    If a company doesn't deal fairly with its insureds, it not only opens itelf up to allegations of bad faith (which can be very damaging), but it also gains a bad reputation in the market and - guess what - brokers stop selling their policies to people. The part I love about my job is coming into someone's sudden disaster, solving problems and helping people out of a jam that they're unprepared to handle on their own (yes, it's kind of like the emergency services in a weird way). The part I hate is attitudes like the one I see you displaying here.

    I LIKE paying claims. The company I work for LIKES it when I pay a claim quickly and fairly, and when the insureds are happy with the service they received. It's expected of me. All I expect of my insureds is that they deal with me fairly and honestly so that I can facilitate their claim and help them out. I DON'T like denying claims; I'd much rather help people, but the fact is that not everything is covered (if it were, you wouldn't be able to afford the premiums).

    Insurance companies don't grow their own money on secret trees somewhere. The money used to pay the claims comes from you and your neighbour and dear old Aunt Agnes down the street, people who all chip in to pay a little bit of money each year that will be pooled to help out those few who run into difficulty during the year. That's why adjusters have a responsibility to investigate each claim (some in more detail than others) and work hard to be transparent and fair to everyone involved. It's also why insurance fraud is wrong.

    We've all heard countless versions of the old "my insurance company done me wrong" story. And some of them are justified - I'm not so naive as to believe that all companies, or all adjusters, are created equal. Some care more than others. Some are more competent or more experienced. I've seen mistakes made (and remedied). But I can tell you that while any John Doe can run about in public saying anything he wants to about his insurance experience, the insurance companies and their employees don't have the same freedom. I have to maintain confidentiality for my insureds. There are times when I would really love to tell "the other side" of the story - it's often damning (and pretty interesting). But I can't. The insurers are at a real disadvantage there.

    If you want to know why flood insurance is expensive, just turn on CNN and take a look at an aerial shot. Unlike fire, floods devastate huge areas in one event. It's similar to earthquake insurance. In order to offer flood insurance to people who choose to live in flood-prone areas, an insurer has two choices: (1) charge high enough premiums to those at risk of flood that you can actually pay the claims when a flood occurs, and set a limit of liability (e.g. $250,000) in order to keep those high premiums low enough that people can actually somehow afford them, or (2) charge higher premiums to everyone across the nation who is not at risk of flood in order to subsidize those who are. The money has to come from somewhere.

    Now, as far as this hurricane is concerned, I'm sure there will be some cases where it's difficult to determine whether the damage was caused by flooding or by wind (but I suspect not that many). In such cases an adjuster will need input from experts to determine which, on the balance of probability, was the proximate cause.

    And for those who were wondering, the exclusion for flood water usually includes damage caused by waves and waterborne objects, whether driven by wind or not, so if a hurricane forces water into your house it would still be considered to be a flood loss, not wind. However, that being said, each insurance company's wordings differ a little from each other and this may not be the case with all of them.
    ______________________________

    "Wherever you go, there you are."

  20. #45
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Momo42
    Okay, I don't post much but I gotta speak up on this.

    Parafire81, I know I shouldn't take your comments personally since you don't know me and you're speaking in ignorance, but nonetheless I'm insulted by them. I'm an EMT and a volunteer firefighter, and I've also been a professional insurance adjuster for 16 years. As GeorgeWendt has tried to point out logically, insurance companies are indeed in the business of paying claims. In fact I could lose my job if I were to try not paying a claim that appeared to be fair and reasonable.

    If a company doesn't deal fairly with its insureds, it not only opens itelf up to allegations of bad faith (which can be very damaging), but it also gains a bad reputation in the market and - guess what - brokers stop selling their policies to people. The part I love about my job is coming into someone's sudden disaster, solving problems and helping people out of a jam that they're unprepared to handle on their own (yes, it's kind of like the emergency services in a weird way). The part I hate is attitudes like the one I see you displaying here.

    I LIKE paying claims. The company I work for LIKES it when I pay a claim quickly and fairly, and when the insureds are happy with the service they received. It's expected of me. All I expect of my insureds is that they deal with me fairly and honestly so that I can facilitate their claim and help them out. I DON'T like denying claims; I'd much rather help people, but the fact is that not everything is covered (if it were, you wouldn't be able to afford the premiums).

    Insurance companies don't grow their own money on secret trees somewhere. The money used to pay the claims comes from you and your neighbour and dear old Aunt Agnes down the street, people who all chip in to pay a little bit of money each year that will be pooled to help out those few who run into difficulty during the year. That's why adjusters have a responsibility to investigate each claim (some in more detail than others) and work hard to be transparent and fair to everyone involved. It's also why insurance fraud is wrong.

    We've all heard countless versions of the old "my insurance company done me wrong" story. And some of them are justified - I'm not so naive as to believe that all companies, or all adjusters, are created equal. Some care more than others. Some are more competent or more experienced. I've seen mistakes made (and remedied). But I can tell you that while any John Doe can run about in public saying anything he wants to about his insurance experience, the insurance companies and their employees don't have the same freedom. I have to maintain confidentiality for my insureds. There are times when I would really love to tell "the other side" of the story - it's often damning (and pretty interesting). But I can't. The insurers are at a real disadvantage there.

    If you want to know why flood insurance is expensive, just turn on CNN and take a look at an aerial shot. Unlike fire, floods devastate huge areas in one event. It's similar to earthquake insurance. In order to offer flood insurance to people who choose to live in flood-prone areas, an insurer has two choices: (1) charge high enough premiums to those at risk of flood that you can actually pay the claims when a flood occurs, and set a limit of liability (e.g. $250,000) in order to keep those high premiums low enough that people can actually somehow afford them, or (2) charge higher premiums to everyone across the nation who is not at risk of flood in order to subsidize those who are. The money has to come from somewhere.

    Now, as far as this hurricane is concerned, I'm sure there will be some cases where it's difficult to determine whether the damage was caused by flooding or by wind (but I suspect not that many). In such cases an adjuster will need input from experts to determine which, on the balance of probability, was the proximate cause.

    And for those who were wondering, the exclusion for flood water usually includes damage caused by waves and waterborne objects, whether driven by wind or not, so if a hurricane forces water into your house it would still be considered to be a flood loss, not wind. However, that being said, each insurance company's wordings differ a little from each other and this may not be the case with all of them.
    This is a great post. Thanks.

    If people only knew how hard it is to actually deny a claim. There is alot more to it than saying "I'm not paying you" and walking away. They don't understand how highly regulated the industry is and heavily eighted those regulations are to protect the insured.

  21. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,143

    Default

    Excuse me for interjecting here but I think several points are being missed and I see nobody speaking as a previous victim.

    1.) The insurance company did NOT force the person to live in a coastal area with a historical record of hurricanes and flooding, and that is clearly advertised as being "below sea level" with a system of levees surronding it.

    2.) If the person's home was leveled by wind or flood ( I think we need a fluid hydraulics engineer here) what does it matter; if the person had the normal intelligence to have both flood insurance and a normal homeowners policy. They don't make up hundred year flood plain maps just to get premiums from you. The National Hurricane Center has a website with all kinds of historical records availble to anyone willing to take the time to look. No, they chose to ignore the scientific and historical evidence to live in the Big Easy or with an ocean view!


    This is spoken from experience as a "refugee, evacuee, camper etc." I was within 10 miles of the eyes of 3 hurricanes last year and clocked winds of 115 mph by my own weather station, prior to it being ripped from its mounting. No power for 7 days, no water, no sewer, no food, camping in a tent and NO SIGN OF FEMA ANYWHERE during that time. I had moved from the coast 25 years prior, to escape the storms and took those hits from 3 hurricanes in 60 days last year in Florida.

    After an exasperating, but successful, battle with the insurance company, which had me insured for both, I got No arguement, No problems, just a little debate over how many deductibles I had to pay. Bottom line, ask someone from Hurricane Andrew in Miami and Homestead why they now call it " St. Andrew". My property value pre-2004 storms, $187,000 / one year after three hurricanes $345,000. Oh, and by the way, I recieved the biggest IRS refund I ever had in my life in April.

    Moral of the story; If you have your property insured correctly, keep track of your expenses and fight from a position of knowledge and not emotion, you can come out smelling like a rose! If you want the oceanview and the "culture" ,you have to accept the risk that accompanies it or insure against it.
    Kurt Bradley
    Fire/EMS/EMA Grant Consultant
    " Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Momo42
    Okay, I don't post much but I gotta speak up on this.

    Parafire81, I know I shouldn't take your comments personally since you don't know me and you're speaking in ignorance, but nonetheless I'm insulted by them. I'm an EMT and a volunteer firefighter, and I've also been a professional insurance adjuster for 16 years. As GeorgeWendt has tried to point out logically, insurance companies are indeed in the business of paying claims. In fact I could lose my job if I were to try not paying a claim that appeared to be fair and reasonable.

    If a company doesn't deal fairly with its insureds, it not only opens itelf up to allegations of bad faith (which can be very damaging), but it also gains a bad reputation in the market and - guess what - brokers stop selling their policies to people. The part I love about my job is coming into someone's sudden disaster, solving problems and helping people out of a jam that they're unprepared to handle on their own (yes, it's kind of like the emergency services in a weird way). The part I hate is attitudes like the one I see you displaying here.

    I LIKE paying claims. The company I work for LIKES it when I pay a claim quickly and fairly, and when the insureds are happy with the service they received. It's expected of me. All I expect of my insureds is that they deal with me fairly and honestly so that I can facilitate their claim and help them out. I DON'T like denying claims; I'd much rather help people, but the fact is that not everything is covered (if it were, you wouldn't be able to afford the premiums).

    Insurance companies don't grow their own money on secret trees somewhere. The money used to pay the claims comes from you and your neighbour and dear old Aunt Agnes down the street, people who all chip in to pay a little bit of money each year that will be pooled to help out those few who run into difficulty during the year. That's why adjusters have a responsibility to investigate each claim (some in more detail than others) and work hard to be transparent and fair to everyone involved. It's also why insurance fraud is wrong.

    We've all heard countless versions of the old "my insurance company done me wrong" story. And some of them are justified - I'm not so naive as to believe that all companies, or all adjusters, are created equal. Some care more than others. Some are more competent or more experienced. I've seen mistakes made (and remedied). But I can tell you that while any John Doe can run about in public saying anything he wants to about his insurance experience, the insurance companies and their employees don't have the same freedom. I have to maintain confidentiality for my insureds. There are times when I would really love to tell "the other side" of the story - it's often damning (and pretty interesting). But I can't. The insurers are at a real disadvantage there.

    If you want to know why flood insurance is expensive, just turn on CNN and take a look at an aerial shot. Unlike fire, floods devastate huge areas in one event. It's similar to earthquake insurance. In order to offer flood insurance to people who choose to live in flood-prone areas, an insurer has two choices: (1) charge high enough premiums to those at risk of flood that you can actually pay the claims when a flood occurs, and set a limit of liability (e.g. $250,000) in order to keep those high premiums low enough that people can actually somehow afford them, or (2) charge higher premiums to everyone across the nation who is not at risk of flood in order to subsidize those who are. The money has to come from somewhere.

    Now, as far as this hurricane is concerned, I'm sure there will be some cases where it's difficult to determine whether the damage was caused by flooding or by wind (but I suspect not that many). In such cases an adjuster will need input from experts to determine which, on the balance of probability, was the proximate cause.

    And for those who were wondering, the exclusion for flood water usually includes damage caused by waves and waterborne objects, whether driven by wind or not, so if a hurricane forces water into your house it would still be considered to be a flood loss, not wind. However, that being said, each insurance company's wordings differ a little from each other and this may not be the case with all of them.
    That is one of the most informative posts that I have read here in some time.
    Thanks for taking the time to walk us through it.
    My son works for a major insurance company. We played golf yesterday and he told me that their exposure from Katrina will reach 6-1/2 Billion.
    And they didn't think that was too bad at all.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  23. #48
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southeast Iowa
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Momo42
    Okay, I don't post much but I gotta speak up on this.

    Parafire81, I know I shouldn't take your comments personally since you don't know me and you're speaking in ignorance, but nonetheless I'm insulted by them. I'm an EMT and a volunteer firefighter, and I've also been a professional insurance adjuster for 16 years. As GeorgeWendt has tried to point out logically, insurance companies are indeed in the business of paying claims. In fact I could lose my job if I were to try not paying a claim that appeared to be fair and reasonable.

    If a company doesn't deal fairly with its insureds, it not only opens itelf up to allegations of bad faith (which can be very damaging), but it also gains a bad reputation in the market and - guess what - brokers stop selling their policies to people. The part I love about my job is coming into someone's sudden disaster, solving problems and helping people out of a jam that they're unprepared to handle on their own (yes, it's kind of like the emergency services in a weird way). The part I hate is attitudes like the one I see you displaying here.

    I LIKE paying claims. The company I work for LIKES it when I pay a claim quickly and fairly, and when the insureds are happy with the service they received. It's expected of me. All I expect of my insureds is that they deal with me fairly and honestly so that I can facilitate their claim and help them out. I DON'T like denying claims; I'd much rather help people, but the fact is that not everything is covered (if it were, you wouldn't be able to afford the premiums).

    Insurance companies don't grow their own money on secret trees somewhere. The money used to pay the claims comes from you and your neighbour and dear old Aunt Agnes down the street, people who all chip in to pay a little bit of money each year that will be pooled to help out those few who run into difficulty during the year. That's why adjusters have a responsibility to investigate each claim (some in more detail than others) and work hard to be transparent and fair to everyone involved. It's also why insurance fraud is wrong.

    We've all heard countless versions of the old "my insurance company done me wrong" story. And some of them are justified - I'm not so naive as to believe that all companies, or all adjusters, are created equal. Some care more than others. Some are more competent or more experienced. I've seen mistakes made (and remedied). But I can tell you that while any John Doe can run about in public saying anything he wants to about his insurance experience, the insurance companies and their employees don't have the same freedom. I have to maintain confidentiality for my insureds. There are times when I would really love to tell "the other side" of the story - it's often damning (and pretty interesting). But I can't. The insurers are at a real disadvantage there.

    If you want to know why flood insurance is expensive, just turn on CNN and take a look at an aerial shot. Unlike fire, floods devastate huge areas in one event. It's similar to earthquake insurance. In order to offer flood insurance to people who choose to live in flood-prone areas, an insurer has two choices: (1) charge high enough premiums to those at risk of flood that you can actually pay the claims when a flood occurs, and set a limit of liability (e.g. $250,000) in order to keep those high premiums low enough that people can actually somehow afford them, or (2) charge higher premiums to everyone across the nation who is not at risk of flood in order to subsidize those who are. The money has to come from somewhere.

    Now, as far as this hurricane is concerned, I'm sure there will be some cases where it's difficult to determine whether the damage was caused by flooding or by wind (but I suspect not that many). In such cases an adjuster will need input from experts to determine which, on the balance of probability, was the proximate cause.

    And for those who were wondering, the exclusion for flood water usually includes damage caused by waves and waterborne objects, whether driven by wind or not, so if a hurricane forces water into your house it would still be considered to be a flood loss, not wind. However, that being said, each insurance company's wordings differ a little from each other and this may not be the case with all of them.

    I stand corrected. I was misinformed, and the opinion I had developed reflected that...but surely you can understand where I was coming from.

    Thanks for the informative post.

    And yes, I CAN admit when I'm wrong.

  24. #49
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parafire81
    I stand corrected. I was misinformed, and the opinion I had developed reflected that...but surely you can understand where I was coming from.

    Thanks for the informative post.

    And yes, I CAN admit when I'm wrong.
    You should have listened to me 2 pages ago and saved yourself some emmbarrasment. I said the same thing.

  25. #50
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Southeast Iowa
    Posts
    158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    You should have listened to me 2 pages ago and saved yourself some emmbarrasment. I said the same thing.

    George, no offense, but you do not work in the insurance industry. Why would I accept an opinion from you?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Spokane, WA Mayor
    By CaptOldTimer in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-10-2005, 09:32 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-05-2004, 10:57 PM
  3. Australian surfers told: Dudes, chill out
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2003, 05:05 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 07:10 PM
  5. The NEW YORK TIMES
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-15-2002, 12:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register