• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Jim HOOD, Attorney General for Mississippi State, filed a suit against insurers

M

Mr.Who

Jim HOOD, Attorney General for Mississippi State, filed a suit against insurers in the state which adjusters were offering owners of homes damaged by H. Katrina to receive a check for living expenses right away if only they resign their claims.
Well done! It is so Americanly to make a maximum profit of some other's disaster! Still, that's not it. In case victims disagree and insist on coverage for flooding damage, the insurers will file a counter claim in return against Federal Government which inaction increased the damage immensely.
So why kicking ass? Let it be President Bush to pay the claims. Why, he's got lot of spare money he easily ladles out. Say, to Georgia and her president Saakashvili.
 

SKILMATIC

Banned
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
3,407
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Mr.Who said:
Jim HOOD, Attorney General for Mississippi State, filed a suit against insurers in the state which adjusters were offering owners of homes damaged by H. Katrina to receive a check for living expenses right away if only they resign their claims.
Well done! It is so Americanly to make a maximum profit of some other's disaster! Still, that's not it. In case victims disagree and insist on coverage for flooding damage, the insurers will file a counter claim in return against Federal Government which inaction increased the damage immensely.
So why kicking ass? Let it be President Bush to pay the claims. Why, he's got lot of spare money he easily ladles out. Say, to Georgia and her president Saakashvili.
I think the insurers should pay up every dollar. Thats what their job is. If they dont then why even have insurance if they dont even do what they are supposed to do?
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm sure the insurance companies will screw all of us one way or another.
 

shuamort

Pundit-licious
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
7,297
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Saint Paul, MN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SKILMATIC said:
I think the insurers should pay up every dollar. Thats what their job is. If they dont then why even have insurance if they dont even do what they are supposed to do?
I work for an insurance company, but I'm not speaking ex cathedra here, but luckily we haven't been named in this suit either.

Insurance companies for the most part do not cover for flood damage for two big reasons. One, the costs can become astronomical and widespread. Two, the federal government has flood insurance programs which are going to be far more comprehensive (not just personal/property, but city infrastructure).

The big point is, if there's flood damage to the house , the fed govt is going to pay for the repairs whether it was caused by the hurricane or a levee breaking. If it's hurricane damage (high wind, lightning strike, etc), then the insurance company will take over. The flood insurance typically trumps the regular insurance as that's more devastating.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
SKILMATIC said:
I think the insurers should pay up every dollar. Thats what their job is. If they dont then why even have insurance if they dont even do what they are supposed to do?
The insurance companies do not now nor have they ever covered flood damage, damage caused by rising waters. They have NEVER covered it. If that coverage is not in the policy, if the property owner was not paying for such coverage, why should the insurance company pay for the damage?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
I'm sure the insurance companies will screw all of us one way or another.
If the insurance companies, and all the owners including the IRA's and pension funds how own them, are forced to pay for damages the property owners where not paying premiums to cover, who is getting screwed?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The same arguements and claims were made after Camil, which happened first the roof came off or the storm surge hit.

My heart goes out to those who did not buy the cheap flood insurance that is offered, but my head does not. It's time the whole flood insurance program was reformed and we stop insuring such high dollar properties, at such low premiums, and paying to rebuild them over and over.
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
If the insurance companies, and all the owners including the IRA's and pension funds how own them, are forced to pay for damages the property owners where not paying premiums to cover, who is getting screwed?
Why would they be paying for damages that aren't covered? I've never been thrown any freebies by State Farm or Country Insurance. From my experience they typically try to get away with paying the bare minimum or less for damages.

Insurance companies will raise rates for everyone or get their debt off loaded on to the tax payers backs like United. Either way everyone will pay.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Why would they be paying for damages that aren't covered?
If they are forced to pay for flood damages they would be paying for damages that aren't covered.

I've never been thrown any freebies by State Farm or Country Insurance. From my experience they typically try to get away with paying the bare minimum or less for damages.
Why should they overpay and if you are not satisfied change company's.

Insurance companies will raise rates for everyone or get their debt off loaded on to the tax payers backs like United. Either way everyone will pay.
If the premiums being paid do not cover the loses being claimed then what do you suggest they do?
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
If they are forced to pay for flood damages they would be paying for damages that aren't covered.



Why should they overpay and if you are not satisfied change company's.



If the premiums being paid do not cover the loses being claimed then what do you suggest they do?
Who is forcing them to pay for damages that weren't covered?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
scottyz said:
Who is forcing them to pay for damages that weren't covered?
The AG of Mississippi is threatening suit and Richard "Dickie" Scruggs the famous Mississippi tobacco lawyer is filing suit and thousands of people who did not have flood insurance are screaming for the government to force the insurance compaines to pay for their flood damage in spite of the fact that the policies clearly state it is not covered and there were no premiums paid for such coverage.

see http://www.al.com/enter/index.ssf?/...ex.ssf?/base/news/1127640273114680.xml&coll=3
 
Top Bottom