http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14362386/
What a backwards world this is. Blaming their damage on flooding, not the hurricane, no matter what caused that flooding.
Printable View
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14362386/
What a backwards world this is. Blaming their damage on flooding, not the hurricane, no matter what caused that flooding.
It's always been the case. Hurricane insurance covers WIND, not flooding. Most insurance policies you get rarely cover flooding, as it's separate insurance with sky-high premiums. Insurance companies heavily emphasize this to Atlantic and Gulf Coast states in hurricane danger zones, and they almost always have to mention the need for flood insurance, especially to homeowners. As someone who works in the insurance industry, I support this decision.
Sorry, that is the way it works. People live in areas that are risks, and the Insurance in the business to make money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil D.
Which, brings up a good point, always read your Insurance Policy, it contains many pages for a reason...
Quote:
Senter Jr. said Paul and Julie Leonard of Pascagoula could be compensated for damage that they could prove was caused by high winds, however “Almost all the damage to the Leonard residence is attributable to the incursion of water,” Senter wrote in the 13-page decision.
I am in insurance agent and I agree with Joe.
Your regular homeowners insurance has a specific exclusion for flooding. This is why most people get flood insurance in flood prone areas. Flood insurance is special because its backed by the government because of the possibility of natural disasters such as Katrina. I also agree with the judge in this case.
If any of you ever have any questions about property and casualty insurance you can always pick my brain....
Thanks,
Pete