Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: Told Ya

  1. #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.


  2. #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!

  3. #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.

  4. #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."

  5. #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.

  6. #46
    MembersZone Subscriber ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,031

    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
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  7. #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)

  8. #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.

  9. #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.

  10. #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?

  11. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by parafire81
    George, no offense, but you do not work in the insurance industry. Why would I accept an opinion from you?
    Because, unlike others, George usually loads both barrels with exhaustive research.
    When you want to "prove him wrong", you really have to work your butt off.
    And even then, you might come up empty!
    Throw in the towel, parafire. In retrospect, you should have started out a little "smaller" and worked your way up to George.
    Maybe even check out the always fun/sometimes funny Off Duty Discussions.
    CR
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  12. #52
    Permanently Removed hoseheadmaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    pa
    Posts
    76

    Default

    how would the insurance company cover, if say my house got flooded and I have no flood insurance but by some act of god (i.e.: lightning, cow kicking over a lantern) after the water receded the house were to burn to the ground. am I covered.

  13. #53
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoseheadmaps
    how would the insurance company cover, if say my house got flooded and I have no flood insurance but by some act of god (i.e.: lightning, cow kicking over a lantern) after the water receded the house were to burn to the ground. am I covered.
    I would imagine so. As long as no one had already written the house off as total loss, then they would probably pay. At least I would hope that your agent would be there to help get you covered. They know how to work the system, and as we have seen on this thread, they are not out to avoid paying claims!
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  14. #54
    Permanently Removed hoseheadmaps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    pa
    Posts
    76

    Default

    that would explain the large heard of cows heading to N.O.

  15. #55
    MembersZone Subscriber Diane E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Maryland (but always a Long Islander first)
    Posts
    1,103

    Default

    that would explain the large heard of cows heading to N.O.
    Yup. And the milk prices will go up again...
    Last edited by DianeC; 09-20-2005 at 03:16 PM. Reason: add the quote that wasn't there...
    "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)

  16. #56
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Talking

    Why does everything have to be a conspiracy? How do you know that they aren't just MOOOOOVING!
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  17. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Posts
    4,191

    Default

    I just heard....cattle mutilations are up.

    FTM-PTB

  18. #58
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    indianapolis
    Posts
    273

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED
    I just heard....cattle mutilations are up.

    FTM-PTB
    My sources just informed me that Area51 has had increased traffic lately. I wonder what they are up to. I have heard that the current administration has a deal with the aliens to wipe NO off the map.
    To those whom much has been given, much shall be required.
    Chickens don't really exist....they are actually eggs with legs!

  19. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FFFRED
    I just heard....cattle mutilations are up.

    FTM-PTB
    Probably being done by those same mean old FDNY guys that hogged the shower.







    Yes it is a JOKE, please no hate mail

  20. #60
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    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.
    Amen to that! After having had command at a few apartment building fires, I am totally amazed when you see plasma tv's, high end stereo systems, expensive furniture and such and then the tennant say they "didn't have insurance because they...

    a: coudln't afford it
    b: thought insurance was part ofthe rent.
    c: the landlord is responsible for my stuff."

    I have earthquake insurance. It costs me $40 a year extra on my policy. I am covered should there be an earthquake here in New England. There hasn't been a damaging quake since the 1700's, but if there is...
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

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, 08:32 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-05-2004, 09:57 PM
  3. Australian surfers told: Dudes, chill out
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-10-2003, 04:05 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 06:10 PM
  5. The NEW YORK TIMES
    By E40FDNYL35 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-14-2002, 11:06 PM

Posting Permissions

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