DuckSouth.com

You can argue about this forever and one side of the other will never give in.

It is simple you don't have to have insurance. Insurance companies are there to provide you with a risk management tool a service if you will. If you do not think that it is benefical for you to pay them a premium in return for what they agree to cover then don't buy the policy. No one is forced to buy insurance unless we are talking about liability insurance which I think is a joke and if it were not for the "democrats" we would not have to do that. And don't say that the mortgage company requires me to have insurance. Yes that is true but you can pay for your house with cash and if you can't afford that then tuff chit rent. People get mad at insurance companies because they feel that they are intitled to something that they are not. The world is not perfect if it were people would be smart enough not to live on an active fault line, at the base of a volcano, in a trailer house in tornado alley, or on the beach in a hurricane prone gulf.

timberjack wrote:

duck warrior wrote: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.

Homeowners policies in every state exclude the same type of loss we are talking about, so its not like Dale just decided to screw the people of Mississippi. talk aboutthe sky falling.........remeber he is elected by the people, so to hose the people who elected him would be dumb.

By stating Insurance companies by nature are crooked, is such a generality and making broad statements like that show a lack of maturity at best and a lack of intelligence at worst.

If you have some specifics lets here them, but it better be more than, "the customers never read their policies to see what was and was not covered", or that they were not intelligent enough to understand what it said if they did. I'm not making fun of anyone who claims to not be able to understand how to read a contract, but it surely is not the insurance companies fault if they do not.

Thisis the last post I will make on this one, but you must remember, the stories that are in the news are the ones of the small percentage of people who are unhappy about their circumstances surrounding their claim. It is not news worthy to report the overwhelming majority that have been very pleased with their claims on the coast and through out Mississippi.

Tj--Go cut some wood and cancel your insurance policies and let it ride. Then you want have to worry about the fact that the insurance policy is not written on the 4th grade level.

DW

bigoak wrote: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?

Do you really think they're gonna pay you if you have a claim?? You never know. I know this though. Every time I have a claim against my medical insurance they try to wiggle out of paying it. Why do they try so hard not to pay when they know they are obligated?? Because that's how they make part of their money, by rejecting legitimate claims. Ever see the movie "the Rainmaker"?? I'm not saying they didn't embellish to make a movie but you gotta admit there were some elements of truth in that. You better read the fine print, cause you can bet when your house burns or you total your truck they're gonna looking for a loophole. Good luck

timberjack wrote:

bigoak wrote: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?

Do you really think they're gonna pay you if you have a claim?? You never know. I know this though. Every time I have a claim against my medical insurance they try to wiggle out of paying it. Why do they try so hard not to pay when they know they are obligated?? Because that's how they make part of their money, by rejecting legitimate claims. Ever see the movie "the Rainmaker"?? I'm not saying they didn't embellish to make a movie but you gotta admit there were some elements of truth in that. You better read the fine print, cause you can bet when your house burns or you total your truck they're gonna looking for a loophole. Good luck[/quote


The Rainmaker? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Now I see why you think the way you do! You get all your info from movies. Please tell me you realize movies are fake? come on...

Let me guess, you saw ET and thought Elliott really had an alien friend right? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bless your heart

You mean ET isn't real??? Why'd you have to go and ruin it for me??

OK, you've convinced me, I see the light now. Insurance companies are really here to help people. I see now that they would never, ever deny a legitimate claim and all that legal, fine print, mumbo jumbo is just their way of taking care of the insured, right?? I feel much better now, knowing that my IC will be there when my house gets gutted by an act of god. I can't imagine why all those folks on the coast are complaining, they must all be out to get something for nothing, feeling entitled and so forth. How dare they!! Our poor pitiful forever-faithful IC's are getting screwed. I'm feeling really sorry for them now. Out of charity they went down to the coast and insured the houses of those no-good freeloaders who feel entitled, and now they're being asked to pay up!! I say we pass the plate and take up a collection for their legal defense fund. Lord knows they don't have the money to pay it. I doubt I'll sleep a wink tonight, worrying about their bottom line 'cause I'm sure they're lying awake worrying about me.

I guess it's really a moral issue, but then, in today's world morals have no place in business. Those folks paid their premiums right on time and they thought they were covered for everything. Turns out, due to the wording on line 12 of the third paragraph of their impossible to understand policy, that they weren't. The right thing for the IC to do would be to pay but that won't happen, yet another example of the little man getting screwed.

weimhunter wrote:I know some of you will hate me for saying this, but if the homeowners would have won this case it would effect every homeowner in MS because there would be even more claims thrown in the MS windpool which was under funded. That would have made insurance companies have to pay more to bail out the state. Which would cause homeowner rates in MS to got out the roof!!!!

Amen. That was the worst thing about living in Fl. The insurance companies got to where they don't even insure property within a certain distance of the ocean. The state basically had to form an entity which offered insurane to the beachfront real estate owners. Everybody's rates went up a little so the state government could fund this. It was fee assessed on every policy. Forget that. I'll be darned if I mitigate the liability associated with someone else owning a beachhouse. I say if you live on or near the water you roll the dice and take your chances like everyone else.

timberjack wrote:You mean ET isn't real??? Why'd you have to go and ruin it for me??

OK, you've convinced me, I see the light now. Insurance companies are really here to help people. I see now that they would never, ever deny a legitimate claim and all that legal, fine print, mumbo jumbo is just their way of taking care of the insured, right?? I feel much better now, knowing that my IC will be there when my house gets gutted by an act of god. I can't imagine why all those folks on the coast are complaining, they must all be out to get something for nothing, feeling entitled and so forth. How dare they!! Our poor pitiful forever-faithful IC's are getting screwed. I'm feeling really sorry for them now. Out of charity they went down to the coast and insured the houses of those no-good freeloaders who feel entitled, and now they're being asked to pay up!! I say we pass the plate and take up a collection for their legal defense fund. Lord knows they don't have the money to pay it. I doubt I'll sleep a wink tonight, worrying about their bottom line 'cause I'm sure they're lying awake worrying about me.

I guess it's really a moral issue, but then, in today's world morals have no place in business. Those folks paid their premiums right on time and they thought they were covered for everything. Turns out, due to the wording on line 12 of the third paragraph of their impossible to understand policy, that they weren't. The right thing for the IC to do would be to pay but that won't happen, yet another example of the little man getting screwed.

For a judge to rule in an insurance company's favor it must very pretty darn black and white.

Yep, black and white. It's plain to see that they're all wrong and the IC's are right. They all oughtta drop their cases and thank their lucky stars the IC's don't countersue for harrassment. Those folks are gettin treated kinda like that fly in your avatar.

what insurance companies do you guys represent?

I live on the coast & see the sh$t people are dealing with each day. And just like everyone else I have a few opinions. There are some great insurance agents out there. Some are even friends. But like all professions there are some bad ones. Some are at a certain level (financially) because they have their "pool" of clients & clerks do all the order taking while the agent is out golfing or fishing. So not all agents take the time to really educate clients let alone explain the fine print of a policy to everyone. The flood insurance is a federal thing & insurance companies only administer the policies so out of my $375 flood policy (sure that will change) how much money does the insurance co. make off this. I doubt much. Therefore what's the incentive for an agent to push the policy. Goes back to the almighty dollar to me. Judges are no different in my opinion. Good ones & bad ones. There will be another judge one day. I am one of the fortunate ones down here. I live on the water (by choice) and did not take on water from the surge. The highest of all Judges was looking after me & my family. Because I had a knowlegable real estate agent I was advised that even though I am not in "a flood zone" if I live on the water I should get the flood insurance. Lucky for me to have had her. I know people down here who were not in flood zones & their house is completely gone. Unless you have been to the coast & have seen first hand some of the area affected you have no idea. Not everyone who lost their home from the surge lives on the beach or even water for that matter. Why should they be left hung out to dry? Hindsight is 20-20 & there are tons of would of's, should of's etc. For those North of us who are bitch$n about their policy going up because of Katrina. I will make a deal with you. I will pay your $100 insurance premium increase if you let us keep all the revenue the casinos bring in. That way we can self insurure ourselves and you will have no worries. Except when other taxes hit you in the butt because casino dollars are not there to benefit the state as a whole. Our Governor is smart enough to know that if the coast comes back bigger & better then the State as a whole will benefit. I don't usually get into these type debates on here and I hate to have an attitude but some of those comments got my dandruff up. Again, this will be debated over and over and these are just my opinions.

SoftCall wrote:what insurance companies do you guys represent?

Me and Jelly work for Shelter and I am proud to say that our company paid every claim that was reported and we had 0 lawsuits against us from the storm!!!

shelter ins.. fine company with good agents..

jelly and wemihunter both do excellent jobs..

i guess if we have learned anything from this discussion, it will be if you live south of I-10 you had better have flood insurance..

also, jelly brought up a good point about the earthquarke coverage..

its clearly spelled out in your homeowners policy that earthquakes are excluded.

i currently do not have coverage for an earthquake, i know this and realize that this is a gamble that i take..

hell this thread has got me thinking about it..

do most homeowners policies have an endorsement that can be added for earthquake coverage??

also in the event that something happend along the new madrid fault, what parts of mississippi would be most effected?? just the delta area??

Good question Bigwater and thanks. You can add an endorsement to cover damage by an earthquake. It'll run you about 15 to 25 percent more than you are paying now. I was a told by a friend who's with Allstate and they aren't adding and new earthquake endorsements at all company wide. (just what he told me).

I don't have the endorsement on my policy either. Weim, do you?

95% of my policyholders don't.

I think the greatest risk in MS for the New Madrid shift is the NE part of the state.

Here some info on MS Earthquakes...

http://www.msema.org/naturalhaz/documents/earthquake1.doc

Earthquake Severity
Richter Earthquake
Magnitudes Effects

Less than 3.5 Generally not felt, but recorded.

3.5-5.4 Often felt, but rarely causes damage.

Under 6.0 At most slight damage to well-designed buildings.
Can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings
over small regions.

6.1-6.9 Can be destructive in areas up to about 100 kilometers
across where people live.

7.0-7.9 Major earthquake. Can cause serious damage over larger areas.

8 or greater Great earthquake. Can cause serious damage in areas several hundred kilometers across.

I have earthquake insurance. The New Madrid is due to shake things up again in our lifetime so you may want to think about it.