Insurance company 1 - homeowners 0.

[SoftCall]

Insurance companies have some of the most involved risk modeling tools available. They know the probability of a catastrophic event (at least enough to assume the risk of selling policies in high risk areas). I don't believe one friggin' bit that this storm caught anyone off guard at any corporate insurance company HQ. A doozy had to hit somewhere and it did - they predicted that one would. It just hit point A instead of point Z. 6 of one and half doz of the other. The coast is the coast is the coast. All areas are populated in strips, damage is damage and cost is cost. It's all about how much risk they are willing to assume. When they get hammered with claims, the fine print comes out.

If I elect to waive a specific form of coverage, then I should have to sign something - is this a policy with insurance companies today?

Also, at what point do homeowners rate increases cross over a homeowner's ability to pay them? Mortgage companies require the policy...if I can't pay my mortagage, I foreclose. If I foreclose, the bank owns a house that they don't want.....in mass scale. Will the mortgage companies and lending institutions get on the lower premium band wagon?

[Jelly]

The state of MS is acting like an insurance co and insuring the house on the coast and don't have to money to pay it. How is a company to plan for that? The state of MS has over 1 billion in exposure and they bring in 13 million in premium? WTF? The had 175 million in reinsurance. That means the state was short over 500 million in katrina. That gets passed along to the insurance companies which in turns gets passed on to the consumer (ie, me and you). That's one reason premiums are going up.

[tunica]

Oak trees..............I cut 'em down every day. Bring it.

How about a good old one about 130 years cut into 22 inch logs I can burn in My fireplace....And I promise ya we can burn some old insurance policies I have....

[duck warrior]

TJ,

You write up a contract for someone's timber, and the contract speaks for it self, but your customer did not understand the contract fully but signed it any way. After cutting the trees and writing the ck, the customer expects their land to look a lot cleaner and thinks you should go to the expense of making theri land look liek a stump free pasture. The contract does not state that you will do that, but eh customer has in their mind that that is whay will happen.

Do you owe it to her to fill her expectations even though it was not in the contract to do so?

Timberjacks...................I know 2 personally that left the business because of a guilty conscience. Bring it!

[duck warrior]

Timber Jack,

You write up a contract for somones timber. Even though they dont fully undersatnd the contract, you feel that they do, and they sign it. you cut their timber and after giving them the ck, they thought you were going to clean there land up better than it is and in fact, had in their mind that you would make it look like a stump free pasture, even though in the contract it does not state you will do this. Their expectation is different than what you had in mind, and in fact different than what the contract stated you would do.

Do you owe it to them to fulfill their expectaions even though the contract does not state you will clear their land into a pasture. In their mind Clear Cut means their land will be cleared. Something to Ponder. If you dont, does that make you a crooked no good timber company?

Timberjacks..........I know 2 personally that left the business becasue of a guilty conscience. Bring it!

[Meeka]

So does anyone know what the standard of care is for an insurance agent in answering the question: "Do I need flood insurance?"

[Jelly]

So does anyone know what the standard of care is for an insurance agent in answering the question: "Do I need flood insurance?"

At closing, the mortgage company will tell you if you are in a flood zone and tell you if it is required.
I have a lot of people ask me if they need flood insurance, and I always tell them, if your house is going to flood, yes you do. If it will not flood, then you don't. no one can predict the future. I let them know what is available and 98% of the people do not buy it.

[timberjack]

TJ,

You write up a contract for someone's timber, and the contract speaks for it self, but your customer did not understand the contract fully but signed it any way. After cutting the trees and writing the ck, the customer expects their land to look a lot cleaner and thinks you should go to the expense of making theri land look liek a stump free pasture. The contract does not state that you will do that, but eh customer has in their mind that that is whay will happen.

Do you owe it to her to fill her expectations even though it was not in the contract to do so?

Timberjacks...................I know 2 personally that left the business because of a guilty conscience. Bring it!

I tell 'em up front what it's gonna look like. Do you think your ins. salesman would do that?? Absolutely not if they think they'll lose a sale because of it.........and another thing, have you ever actually read all the fine print in your policy?? You can't make heads or tails outta that stuff. My timber contracts look like a 4 year old wrote 'em compared to those things. I'm just gettin warmed up!

Tunica, I've got all the firewood you'll ever need, but you might have to drive a spell to get it.

[duck warrior]

TJ,

You write up a contract for someone's timber, and the contract speaks for it self, but your customer did not understand the contract fully but signed it any way. After cutting the trees and writing the ck, the customer expects their land to look a lot cleaner and thinks you should go to the expense of making theri land look liek a stump free pasture. The contract does not state that you will do that, but eh customer has in their mind that that is whay will happen.

Do you owe it to her to fill her expectations even though it was not in the contract to do so?

Timberjacks...................I know 2 personally that left the business because of a guilty conscience. Bring it!

I tell 'em up front what it's gonna look like. Do you think your ins. salesman would do that?? Absolutely not if they think they'll lose a sale because of it.........and another thing, have you ever actually read all the fine print in your policy?? You can't make heads or tails outta that stuff. My timber contracts look like a 4 year old wrote 'em compared to those things. I'm just gettin warmed up!

Tunica, I've got all the firewood you'll ever need, but you might have to drive a spell to get it.

Remember, these agents did lose a sale over it, they could have written a flood policy and made money, but did not. that is what people are saying they did wrong.

I guess it depends on each individual's abilities as to whether they can understand a contract or not, but that is not the point, the point is that if something happens that is not covered by the contract, you can't say they should pay anyway, only because their expectations were different than what the contract said even if they can not understand it. The contract was approved by the state insurane commissioners office as one that is understandable legally binding.

Are you going to tell me that you have never had a situation where the customer had expectations that were higher than what you had in mind when you contracted with them to begin with? How long you been buying wood?, cuz my boys in that business complain about it constantly about customers having to high of expectations of what their land is going to look like afterwards.


Im going to graciously pass on your point that your contract looks like a 4 year old wrote it. No need to go there.

DW

[bigoak]

I do not have enough knowledge of the situation on the coast to have an opinion. I did read in the Clarion Ledger today that if the courts rule against the insurance companies then we could see companies stop writing policies on the coast.

The way some on this board are calling insurance companies scum is just wrong. Some of the finest people I know are insurance agents. I personally have a great relationship with my agent and whenever I have filed a claim they have been more than fair to me.

For those of you that despise insurance companies, the only alternative is to go without insurance.

[timberjack]

The contract was approved by the state insurane commissioners office as one that is understandable legally binding.

Are you going to tell me that you have never had a situation where the customer had expectations that were higher than what you had in mind when you contracted with them to begin with? How long you been buying wood?, cuz my boys in that business complain about it constantly about customers having to high of expectations of what their land is going to look like afterwards.

You mean George Dale's office approved the wording in those contracts?? Yet another reason he should go. He's ineffective, inept, and lacks the backbone to do the job, which is, by the way, regulating insurance companies. Why do you think we need a commissioner anyway? It's because insurance companies are by nature too crooked to regulate themselves. George D. is supposed to be protecting us not the other way around. Did anybody happen to catch him on Gallo's radio show this morning?? What a joke.

I can honestly say I've never had a problem with customers not being satisfied with the job I did for 'em. But then again most of my business is repeat so they know what to expect.........but you can take one thing to the bank, if someone did come to me with a problem I wouldn't leave 'em high and dry like these ins. co.'s did. Those folks got screwed by the technicalities in the fine print, plain and simple. This hurricane blew that storm surge into those people's homes and the ins. co's are welching big time.........the flood wasn't caused by rain, it was caused by the wind and that's why they should pay.

Oh yeah, sounds like your boys need a course in communication. If they're having trouble pleasing their customers then send 'em up here to me and I'll show 'em how it's done. If people would just talk to one another instead of being in such a hurry then they wouldn't have all those problems. I thought you said they were out of business now.............figures.

[timberjack]

I did read in the Clarion Ledger today that if the courts rule against the insurance companies then we could see companies stop writing policies on the coast.

Idle threats, scare tactics..........the sky is falling, the sky is falling!

The way some on this board are calling insurance companies scum is just wrong. Some of the finest people I know are insurance agents. I personally have a great relationship with my agent and whenever I have filed a claim they have been more than fair to me.

There's a big difference between the company itself and the agents who sell it. I have a close friend who sells ins for FB. He also tells me how bad we're all getting screwed.

[Jelly]

The contract was approved by the state insurane commissioners office as one that is understandable legally binding.

Are you going to tell me that you have never had a situation where the customer had expectations that were higher than what you had in mind when you contracted with them to begin with? How long you been buying wood?, cuz my boys in that business complain about it constantly about customers having to high of expectations of what their land is going to look like afterwards.

You mean George Dale's office approved the wording in those contracts?? Yet another reason he should go. He's ineffective, inept, and lacks the backbone to do the job, which is, by the way, regulating insurance companies. Why do you think we need a commissioner anyway? It's because insurance companies are by nature too crooked to regulate themselves. George D. is supposed to be protecting us not the other way around. Did anybody happen to catch him on Gallo's radio show this morning?? What a joke.

I can honestly say I've never had a problem with customers not being satisfied with the job I did for 'em. But then again most of my business is repeat so they know what to expect.........but you can take one thing to the bank, if someone did come to me with a problem I wouldn't leave 'em high and dry like these ins. co.'s did. Those folks got screwed by the technicalities in the fine print, plain and simple. This hurricane blew that storm surge into those people's homes and the ins. co's are welching big time.........the flood wasn't caused by rain, it was caused by the wind and that's why they should pay.

Oh yeah, sounds like your boys need a course in communication. If they're having trouble pleasing their customers then send 'em up here to me and I'll show 'em how it's done. If people would just talk to one another instead of being in such a hurry then they wouldn't have all those problems. I thought you said they were out of business now.............figures.

You truly have no clue what the insurance comissioners job actually is.

[bigoak]

I have a policy on my home. I know if my house burns down I will get paid a certain amount. I have a policy on my truck. I know if I total my truck I will get paid a certain amount. The alternative is to not have insurance and get nothing if my house burns or I wreck my truck. How am I getting screwed?

[OldMan'sBoy]

"Those folks got screwed by the technicalities in the fine print, plain and simple. This hurricane blew that storm surge into those people's homes and the ins. co's are welching big time.........the flood wasn't caused by rain, it was caused by the wind and that's why they should pay."

______________

Read the judge's opinion. He quotes the policy in detail. The policy explicitly says:

We do not cover loss to any property resulting directly or indirectly from
any of the following . . . (b) Water or damage caused by water-borne material. Loss resulting from water or water-borne material damage described below is not covered even if other perils contributed, directly or indirectly to cause the loss. Water and water-borne material damage means: (1) flood, surface water, waves, tidal waves, overflow of a body
of water, spray from these, whether or not driven by wind.

_______________


So according to the policy and the judge's ruling, it doesn't matter if the flood was caused by wind. The policy specifically excluded flood damage whether it was caused by rain or a hurricane wind.

And apparently, it wasn't in the fine print. According to the opinion, the plaintiff had read the policy and knew he didn't have flood coverage. That's why he asked the agent about it.

We all take chances in life. In my younger days, I took risks by not buying health insurance. I still don't have enough life insurance. But those are/were my choices. These people chose not to buy flood insurance. The upside was they didn't have to pay the premium. The downside was they risked losing their home to flood. I don't think it's the insurance company's obligation to make everyone whole if they made choices that turned out in the end to be bad.