[kart racer]

I work for an insurance company and one of the adjusters called this week from MS and said an adjuster had been shot to death by an insured.He didn't work for our company-I was wondering if anyone had heard or seen anything on the news about it.Supposedly when the insured was advised by the adjuster certain parts of his loss weren't covered by his policy he shot him on the spot.

[45crittergitter]

Haven't heard a word about this. Will keep my eyes open.

[00-Guy]

In checking the Gulfport/Biloxi Daily Herald (www.sunherald.com) archives for the past 7 days, they report nothing about an adjuster being shot.

There was a report early this week that someone was arrested for threating to bomb a FEMA relief site in I believe Biloxi. Fool was promptly arrested.

Good luck.

[kart racer]

Last year or the year before,whenever all the hurricanes hit FL,a farm bureau adjuster(woman),was raped and killed when she went to a townhome to handle a claim.We have several people in MS and the NC coast right now,w/all the people gone it's pretty busy around here trying to take care of the normal stuff.I went to college in AL and have a bunch of friends in MS still,I hope I still get to go there to help.

[beerslurpy]

I didnt even hear about the rape/murder from last year. I guess I must not get the newsletter anymore.

Wouldnt surprise me though. When order hasnt been restored, you either dont go in or you bring order with you on a sling.

[45crittergitter]

This is probably the source of the "story."

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/NEWS0110/509230360/1260

[Borachon]

When you pay a few grand a year in premiums to insure your house, car, etc, you do tend to get a bit testy when the Man shows up to tell you that he isn't going to make good on the damages. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if the story turned out to be true. Not completely sure I wouldn't sympathize with the home owner either. Some of the stories I've heard recently for disavowing coverage on the Coast would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. There are REALLY some shysters working in the insurance industry on the Coast. They seem to be saying "give us money every 3, 6, or 12 months for 10 years, but don't ever come to us and expect to see any of it back when bad things happen". Writing up a better contract that clearly spelled out what was and was not covered might go a long way to stopping fatal misunderstandings like this. And I consider that to be the responsiblity of the insurance agency.

Of course, it might not help either. Not when the adjuster stands there, looks at the top of the house that has CLEARLY been BLOWN across into the neighbors yard and says,
"Yep...that's FLOOD damage...you don't HAVE flood insurance."...they say.
"I'm ten miles from the beach...this area is 60 feet above the flood zone. The water never came this far inland"....you say.
"Yep. Flood damage. Sorry."....they say again while smiling.

I know the insurance industry is going to take a hit, and that the whole country is going to end up paying for it, but why do the agencies have to put everyone through the meatgrinder when all they want is to get there lives back? They were honest enough to pay you guys every 6 months, why can't you be honest enough to admit to damage that is obviously covered?

I know it isn't all adjusters or insurance agents..but there are more than enough bad apples operating in your industry in South MS right now to make ALL of you look bad.

Best advice I can give to your adjusters is "be friendly and sympathetic". Nothing is going to upset homeowners more than if your adjusters come off sounding GLEEFUL at all the money they managed to save the company. Or at least THINK that they saved. Once the lawsuits start coming in and you realize how much money you are REALLY going to lose, homeowners won't HAVE to shoot adjusters and insurance agents. You guys will be shooting yourselves.


Edited:
And since we're posting links, I'll post a related link from the Clarion Ledger about the BILLIONS of dollars the insurance company is trying to keep from paying. Are they right...are they wrong? The court will decide. What good people that I've known for years are telling ME is that they are getting cheated. http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/NEWS0110/509230389/1260

[beerslurpy]

I got treated really nicely last year after my roof and ceilings got rocked by Frances and Jeane. Some of my coworkers didnt do so well and had to fight just to break even.

[SMMAssociates]

Actually, my vote is to shoot the agents.... :evil:

(You have to meet my agent....)

The big print giveth, the fine print taketh away.... :D

I think the guy who decided that ten miles inland and 60' above the flood was flood damage may be related to my mom. She spent a sleepless night trying to get ahold of my sister, near Dallas, to see if she was OK. What - 350 miles? :eek:

(She did the same thing in 1992 when Andrew made it to TX. I was in Dallas at the time, and she called me....)

The (not so) funny thing is that my sister did have problems due to the exploding evacuation bus - it blocked the Interstate she usually takes to work....

Seriously, my agent's a good guy. He makes sure I know what coverage I need. He gives me a discount for saying so, too.... :neener:

Regards,

[petrel800]

Writing up a better contract that clearly spelled out what was and was not covered might go a long way to stopping fatal misunderstandings like this. And I consider that to be the responsiblity of the insurance agency.

Insurance contracts are actually adhesion contracts meaning one party has greater power over the other party. This means in a case of ambiguity, the insurance company loses automatically.

The reason why they are difficult to understand is because of terrible rulings and jury's giving away the insurance company's money because they feel sorry for the claimant.

In this case, flood is specifically excluded in every homeowners policy written. The reason for this is because of adverse selection. Basically, only those who are at an increased risk for flood will buy flood insurance. This makes the percentage of loss uncalculable and therefore uninsurable.

It is your duty to read your own insurance policy and to understand it.

Not completely sure I wouldn't sympathize with the home owner either.

Murder is murder. I don't sympathize with stupid people who aren't capable of reading and entering a contract.

There are REALLY some shysters working in the insurance industry on the Coast.

There are shysters working in every industry in every town in America. The insurance industry was the only industry that doesn't complain or ask for a government bail out everytime something bad happens to them. They just step up and do their duty when the contract calls for it.

Of course, it might not help either. Not when the adjuster stands there, looks at the top of the house that has CLEARLY been BLOWN across into the neighbors yard and says, . . .

That's why there are forensic engineering companies and laywers. In a case, as easy as the one you presented, I don't think you would have any trouble hiring either to discover the cause of loss. In all reality though, most people will have both wind and water damage. Engineers may have to be hired to figure out which is which. If you have both flood and HO insurance, then one of the two policies will pay for the engineer to come in and present a report. If you chose to self insure flood (meaning I didn't buy that policy), then the duty to provide proof that is not water damage becomes your burden. That to is stated in the policy.

And since we're posting links, I'll post a related link from the Clarion Ledger about the BILLIONS of dollars the insurance company is trying to keep from paying.

Oh well I guess since they have a lot of money they should just be nice and pay. Even though the contract specifically states that flood is not a covered peril. Cause you know god forbid they make a profit. Companies that work for profits are evil, like those evil oil companies.

You do realize that with reasoning like this, insurers will take their ball and go home. The only companies left will charge an arm and a leg to insure anything in the state of MS. Especially if they are forced to cover something that was orginally excluded in the orginally signed contract. Flood insurance is offered elsewhere by the government. Instead of being cheap and lazy, these folks should have educated themseleves to the risk and taken PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for their stuff and bought flood insurance.

Oh well, the ignorant here have no idea what they are doing. Great idea, force the insurance companies to cover what was never intended by the contract. Then those bad insurers will pay and then leave. Then we won't have to buy insurance from them . . . wait, you mean if I want to get a loan on this new house I have to buy insurance. How am I going to do that? We ran off all those evil companies after Katrina.

[Borachon]

Murder is murder. I don't sympathize with stupid people who aren't capable of reading and entering a contract.

And I don't sympathize with companies that promise to cover damage caused by wind, and then try to blame the damage on another cause so they can keep those oh-so-precious profits.

As to murder.....eh....if the people getting killed are theives who are willing to condemn people to slow death by keeping them from rebuilding their homes, then I got no problem with them getting their just deserts. I will say this though...I agree that the lowly insurance adjuster in the field is not responsible for his company's policy. To effectively air their spleen, homeowners should take their ire to managers, regional managers, and corporate officers in the company. Let the people who make policy suffer directly for what their embezzellment has caused. We'd have less white collar crime that stole 80 million dollars worth of some old ladies pension funds if the penalty was death...or being forced to do 10 years community service in an old folks home. (Got any idea how often the bed pans of an elderly person need to be changed....try making that "hard time" sound sexy at a retired embezzlers meeting....can't be done.)

Insurance is a gambling industry. Homeowners gamble that damage WILL occur and that they can be compensated for this damage. Insurance companies gamble that they can convince enough people to pay them premiums over a long enough period of time so that when damage does happen, the insurance company comes out ahead...both in the premiums that were paid, and on the profits they made by investing all the money people gave them for 20 years. That is basically how long it has been since a major hurricane struck the Mississippi coast. That's 20 years of profits for the insurance agency...and NOW they are crying poverty? That dog don't hunt.

They just step up and do their duty when the contract calls for it.
I'm laughing so hard right now it's hard for me to type this. Okay...
Yeah, they are real heroes. Their duty (what others might call their "paid for obligation", both morally and under pain of the law) is to provide what is listed in the contracted services. When they DON'T do this....or attempt to prevent paying by changing the definitions of what constitutes damage, and what type...then they have, in my opinion, stepped beyond merely ineffectual and become something evil....in essence a large company of con-artists...promising something until it comes time to pay and then stringing out a lot of BS.

Cause you know god forbid they make a profit. Companies that work for profits are evil, like those evil oil companies.
In this country we do make a distinction between how permissible it is for a person or a company to make a profit. We tend to draw the line on allowing drug companies to make a profit by claiming their drugs cure cancer when they don't. We don't allow people to promise services and not deliver. At least in theory we don't allow these things, either by criminal charges of fraud, or by allowing civil cases to seek just compensation when they are promised something then screwed over.
No one has a problem with them making a profit. As they have been doing in Mississippi for...oh, let me think....20 to 25 years?...perhaps more than that. I'm trying to remember the last BIG disaster that called upon a massive payout in Mississippi. Perhaps Camille was the last major one before this. So why not unlimber some of those 25 plus years of profits that were made when NOTHING happened and pay what you promised? No one is saying they can't make a profit, but I think you are going to find few people sympathetic to the idea the companies continued existence is more important than their keeping their contractual promise to pay for damages.
If they choose NEVER to come back to Mississippi....then good riddance! We'll come up with another method of insurance...perhaps taxes, perhaps home associations...perhaps skimming some money from the casino industry to go toward disaster prep. We'd find a way without them though...believe me.
Companies that won't honor their contracts are worse than useless. They are a drain. Better they NOT come back with their false promises. Get thee behind me insurance company!

Great idea, force the insurance companies to cover what was never intended by the contract.

Great idea, allow insurance companies to continue to get money from people and never pay out anything when damage occurs. Allow them to change the definition of "wind damage" to "flood damage" whenever it suits them. Oh no...we mustn't offend the mighty insurance company....they might take their ball and go play in another state.
Let 'em go! We can build local insurance agencies that can cover us if need be. Or come up with other methods.

[petrel800]

You've got some major misconceptions about how insurance works and what insurance is.

Insurance is a gambling industry. Homeowners gamble that damage WILL occur and that they can be compensated for this damage.

Wrong, insurance is (by definition) the transfer of pure risk.

Insurance(def.) - Contract or device for transferring the risk of loss from a person, business, or organization to an insurance company that agrees, in exchange for a premium, to pay for losses through an accumulation of premiums.

Gambling is a speculative risk (a risk that has potential for loss or gain) and is uninsurable. Insurance provides coverage for pure risk and only provides indemnification for losses orgininating from that risk.

Insurance companies gamble that they can convince enough people to pay them premiums over a long enough period of time so that when damage does happen, the insurance company comes out ahead...both in the premiums that were paid, and on the profits they made by investing all the money people gave them for 20 years.

Wrong, insurance companies use actuaries and the law of large numbers to predict with mathematical models, rates to charge for certain risks and perils. They then use those rates to generate premiums to cover both a portion of their claims (actual losses, claims personal, . . .) and also their underwriting expenses (underwriters, reinsurance . . .). The companies also present their rates and data to reinsurance companies which agree to insure insurance companies. This is known as a reinsurance treaty.

Since flood is excluded in these policies (go read your flood exclusion in your policy) no premium dollars have been collected for flood. By advocating using the police power of government to force insurance companies to pay for something specifically excluded from the policy that no premium was accepted for is theft.

No one has a problem with them making a profit. As they have been doing in Mississippi for...oh, let me think....20 to 25 years?...perhaps more than that. I'm trying to remember the last BIG disaster that called upon a massive payout in Mississippi.

Actually, HO insurance has not been all that profitable for insurance companies for the last several years. This year will actually be the first year that the insurance industry has not had a all lines combined ratio greater than 100%. Disasters are not the only things that cause losses.

If they choose NEVER to come back to Mississippi....then good riddance! We'll come up with another method of insurance...perhaps taxes, perhaps home associations...perhaps skimming some money from the casino industry to go toward disaster prep. We'd find a way without them though...believe me.

It seems that you are advocating once again to use the police power of government to take from one person and provide for another. So instead of using private insurance companies, you want the government to insure risk, or force the casino industry to pay for losses. Well, good luck with that. Government is never as efficient as private industry (look at Ohio's worker's compensation fund, and Canada's health insurance system) and taking from the casinos profits to provide for others is theft. I will point out though that a man by the name of Karl Marx had some good ideas about government control of property and progressive tax of weath and industry that seem to fall in line with your thinking.

Allow them to change the definition of "wind damage" to "flood damage" whenever it suits them.

Like I said in my earlier post, if you were properly insured with both a homeowners form and a flood form you wouldn't have any problems. If you bought just a homeowners form and lived near the coastline without flood coverage, you were either cheap, lazy, or stupid, and the burden of proof to show wind damage is on you if there is a dispute from your insurance company. The INDIVIDUAL in that situation needs to hire an engineer and a lawyer and prove their case. Jumping on a class action lawsuit is not the answer in this case. What you are seeing here is all the people who weren't properly insured trying to use the police power of government to steal from the insurance companies.

On top of all that you are sympathizing with people shooting claims adjusters and other insurance workers who are trying to do their job. We live by a rule of law in this country, not the anarchy that you are suggesting with your off with their head policy.

[carebear]

When I'm writing a loan for a purchase or refinance, I'm required to check with Federal Flood whether flood insurance is required for the area the structure is in. If it is, flood insurance is required to be bought for the loan to close.

If it isn't required, it is up to the homeowner to decide whther they want the coverage on the possibility flood damage (much more broadly defined than "rivers running in the streets") may occur. If they choose to save the bucks and then suffer a loss, oh well, so sorry. The warning they had that their insurance didn't automatically cover flood damage was when they signed the contract.

Heck, the insurance industry brought the current flood practices into being by their own volition just so massive uncovered losses (like happened in 94/95 when Minnesota and the Dakotas learned to swim) wouldn't happen again.

So, if people want to be cheap and let their policies lapse after being required to get them to get a loan, or choose to roll the dice and not get them of their own volition, I find it hard to be too sympathetic.

If they feel the big, mean ol' insurance man is cheating them on interpreting damages the appropriate competant, intelligent adult response is to follow the practices laid out in their policy to contest the decision.

I hate whiners.

[antarti]

I got treated really nicely last year after my roof and ceilings got rocked by Frances and Jeane. Some of my coworkers didnt do so well and had to fight just to break even.

We braved the same, and endured thankfully minor damage. The rest of my neighbors weren't so lucky. As a thank-you for not calling up the insurance company, and paying out-of-pocket for roof patching and fascia/soffit (sp?) repairs, my flood/windstorm/homeowners policies each doubled this year. Of course, they rose by 50% each year before that.

Why don't the insurance apologists tell me again why I should feel sorry for them? I feel even less sorry for the State's dumb-butt lawmakers and regulators who make them do almost half of the stupid (and costly) things they do in the first place. FEMA to me is simply a bunch of clowns who inspect my ground-level garage every 2 years "to make sure I'm not building any rooms down there, which would get me thrown off my flood policy". Idiots all.

A contract is a contract, whomever breaks it is in the wrong (releases the other party or is liable for fraud).

If I call an adjuster who tells me something akin to "Your windstorm policy sure does cover the wind hurting your home, but this damage was caused by the wind hurling your neighbors roof into your home, thus it is an uninsured loss since the wind itself didn't do it", then somebody is going to lose another adjuster, and maybe manager and HQ before it's all over.

[Otherguy Overby]

I've some familiarity with disaster insurance. I've lived in California on and off for many years.

Here's the TRUTH!: Federal help, assistance, low interest loans and whatever are only available to the uninsured.

IOW, in CA, earthquake coverage is 20% deductible (similar to flood). If your house and property would need $300k to restore, you have to come up with $60k to get started. So, if you've the foresight or funds to pay for this insurance up front, you forfeit federal eligibility, in the aftermath of a disaster, no less.

Of course if you are on welfare, never worked, don't own anything, and don't plan too, you will be made whole. A perversion of the "chosen" but that's a somewhat different issue.

[spacemanspiff]

Why don't the insurance apologists tell me again why I should feel sorry for them?
never claimed to be an 'apologist', nor do i ask that anyone feel sorry for the insurance companies. what i do encourage is that people read their policies thoroughly, and have your agent explain the parts you dont understand (trust me, you'll need some help).

coverage is available out there to cover any kind of risk. you'll pay through the nose for it, and most people wish to save a few pennies and underinsure their risks or just leave them completely uninsured.

what limits are on your auto insurance? the bare minimum?

[Borachon]

If you bought just a homeowners form and lived near the coastline


10 miles isn't QUITE considered to be "near" the coastline. The drive to my friends house is actually closer to 15 miles from the ocean, but as the crow flies, it's only about 10.

After reading your post though, I will give you credit. You've almost changed my mind. I almost believed it it was not a gambling industry. Instead, I believe insurance is a fraud. Plain and simple.

Your fancy comments about risk management are all very technical. But when you get down to it...insurance companies are betting they can take your money and make money with it before they have to pay it back to you. You as a homeowner are betting that you'll never need it....but if you do, it will be there (in theory). It's no different than throwing the dice at the casino. Some years you come up a win. Some years you crap out. Insurance companies were betting that there would never be a major payout and they could invest the accumulated money forever. Didn't work. Now they need to pay up...just like they shook hands on and bet.

[Derek Zeanah]

Your fancy comments about risk management are all very technical. But when you get down to it...insurance companies are betting they can take your money and make money with it before they have to pay it back to you. You as a homeowner are betting that you'll never need it....but if you do, it will be there (in theory). It's no different than throwing the dice at the casino. Some years you come up a win. Some years you crap out. Insurance companies were betting that there would never be a major payout and they could invest the accumulated money forever. Didn't work. Now they need to pay up...just like they shook hands on and bet.Here's another way to phrase it: It's hard to make predictions about individuals, but it's easy to make predictions about groups. Whether it's the growth rate of bacteria in a petri dish, or the radioactive decay rate of an isotope, or random sampling in nature, or estimating how many house fires there are going to be in the US this year. Statistics tends to work really well, if the group size is big enough.
Some events are not terribly likely to happen, but are catastrophic when they do. So, companies collect premiums from a lot of folks to provide insurance to them.
It turns out, you can use statistics to determine a risk rating for an individual. 18 year old male drivers, in general, will be more expensive to insure than 46 year-old fathers. This isn't to say that you can't find that a particular 46 year old isn't a riskier driver than your 18 yo neighbor, just that in general the 18 yo is a bigger risk.
If you know the likelihood that someone is going to be filing a claim, you can bill them appropriately. A 60 year old will have higher health insurance premiums than a 26 year old -- yeah, the 26 yo might have to file a huge claim, but we're talking generalities drawn from a data pool that's essentially as large as the U.S. You can bill the 26 year old more and reduce the old guy's rates, but that's not the way to get the 26 yo's business. In general, you pay based on the likelihood you'll need a claim.
Sometimes the guys drawing up the risk ratings get it wrong, like on 9/11 when everyone's rates went up to cover the difference. No-one anticipated that.
We have a market for insurance, which means you can choose between multiple providers. This tends to lead to lower costs -- in my case (State Farm) I believe my insurance company makes no money on the premiums; rather it just collects the interest the premiums earn while waiting to be paid out.
Some kinds of insurance are really expensive. Some kinds aren't available. For the most part, insurance that protects your home against flood is a separate product from regular homeowner's insurance. If you want to be protected in case of flood, you should buy it. In fact, your insurance agent should mention this (mine always have) and help you make a reasoned decision. My experience with mortgages is that you must have your house insured against flood if you live where a flood risk is high.
As far as I know, most people consider living surrounded by water and below sea level a flood riskCall it a scam if you want, but it is what it is. If'n you didn't pay extra to contribute to the flood insurance pool, then you don't need to be drawing from it.

[Rockstar]

Borachon: Your anecdote about the adjuster blaming wind damage on flood damage sounds like typical internet b.s. to me. Got anything besides a few taps on a keyboard to back it up?

[Art Eatman]

From my own personal knowledge, flood insurance has been separate from regular homeowner's insurance for at least thirty years. Thirty years is quite possibly long enoug for people to learn of this phenomenon, this "condition of employment".

In a coastal area such as that along the Gulf of Mexico, if your home is at or below the twenty-foot contour, you'd better have flood insurance as well as windstorm coverage. If not, color yourself wet and broke.

Art

[Borachon]

Your anecdote about the adjuster blaming wind damage on flood damage sounds like typical internet b.s. to me. Got anything besides a few taps on a keyboard to back it up?


You WERE smiling when you called me a liar, weren't you? :D


I don't want to put my friend's name on the board, but I think I might be able to find a link or two that shows this type of thing is going on.

Give me a little bit of time to find one. They've been in our local papers; I should be able to get back issue links.

[Borachon]

This was already posted earlier in this thread.
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050923/NEWS0110/509230389/1260

In addition to Internet BS, criticism without bothering to investigate the issue is ANOTHER common thing you see on the internet.
Now then....got any links to show me that proves it ISN'T happening?

[Borachon]

http://www.newsbanner.com/articles/2005/09/26/news/news17.txt

This is a dead link, but I'm sure you could do an Internet search and find that it did once exist.
09/26/05 Long Beach Man Starts Petition Against Insurance Companies
WLOX-TV Biloxi - Sep 26 3:59 PM
If you are like Kevin Buckel of Long Beach, you've lost your home and everything in it. Now your insurance company is saying, "Sorry, it's not covered" because the damage was caused by flood water, and not a hurricane.

Wonder what might be at stake for the insurance companies? How about large amounts of money? Usually a good reason for all sorts of bad behavior on the part of people.
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=31892999&brk=1

"Les Brown, a partner at law firm Howrey LLP, said insurers may be tripped up by "concurrent causation."

Concurrent causation principles state that if two causes combine to produce loss or damage, and one of the two causes is excluded (for example flood) and the other cause, such as wind, is covered, the claim should be paid."


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-zflood270sep27,0,936107.story?coll=sfla-business-headlines
Some industry watchers dismiss Hood's lawsuit as groundless. But Hood's arguments about the ambiguity of the policies could benefit individual policyholders cases, said Adam Scales, a visiting law professor at the University of Connecticut.

"If the evidence is ambiguous, the tie goes to the policyholder," Scales said.

[Borachon]

Now this may tax you gentlemen in the brain pan, so I'll try to keep this fairly simple.

A disaster of this kind is EXTRAORDINARILY expensive for insurance companies. The stated figure in the articles is 60 billion dollars....that's not counting if flood claims are eventually paid for.

It's unlikely that you'll find a company policy posted on their website stating so, but I promise you that there is a tremendous effort on the part of insurance companies to resist paying insurance claims right now. This pressure has been transferred......well, perhaps I shouldn't speak with such definitiveness, in spite of my friends experience.....so instead I'll say, this pressure would ASSUMEDLY be transferred to the "man in the field". The pressure to save money....AT ANY COSTS....must be in the minds of all the adjusters right now. A company's continued existence may very well hinge on this disaster. Their JOBS may hinge on this disaster, even though they weren't directly in the path.

So what if you screw over someone RIGHT NOW? The person screwed over may...OR MAY NOT...file suit against you in the future. If they don't file, the insurance company wins. If they do file, it could be three or four years before they have to pay...by which time the insurance companies will have raised rates across the country and MAY...possibly....have enough money to pay on the court cases against them. Delay is going to be important to the insurance companies now. It gives them time to pay out money over time. One year, two years, five years...this is better for them.

That's why I think my friend is getting screwed over now. Because, from an insurance company's standpoint, it makes sense to put as much of this off as you can. So they target the people who don't have the money to sue immediately. Bigwigs...with lawyers....can expect good quality service right now. Average guy? Maybe not so much...

We'll see how it all goes. Another big hurricane, or a California earthquake, and the insurance industry is in serious trouble.

[Borachon]

I'll admit my ignorance. If you are cancelled for coverage, can you still apply for an insurance claim?

This is to the people out there complaining they haven't heard from their insurance companies. I contacted my insurance company a week and a half after the hurricane. I haven't seen them either, but I did get a notice of cancellation, because I haven't paid September's premium yet.

Taken from: http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/opinion/12758724.htm

[carebear]

As for cancellation issue...

Did you (the metaphorical you) documentedly call/notify your agent as soon as possible to say, "hey, my home is in the flood/hurricane/fire/zombie alien invasion area, I have to evacuate, I won't get a paycheck so I may not be paying my bill and I will probably be making a claim?"

Or did you just say, "Screw it, the insurance man will read my mind and know whats going on in my particular case out of the thousands of paople who may or may not be actively affected with damages?"

It's a bill that affects your biggest personal investment, pay it up front, not month to month, or at least read the policy to see the consequences of missing a payment.

Personal responsibility.

You live in a hurricane zone near sea level, you should buy a policy that covers wind and flood and hurricane damage. You should read the policy to see what exactly is covered and ask questions if it isn't clear. You should do research and find out which firms are good about paying off (might cost more) and which ones are rock-bottom pricing with service to match.

In the end, you don't want to pay for all that coverage? Tough. You can either roll the dice and be ready to rebuild your home out of pocket OR you can move somewhere else.

[petrel800]

We'll see how it all goes. Another big hurricane, or a California earthquake, and the insurance industry is in serious trouble.

Hate to break it to ya, but earthquake is excluded on most forms too. It has to be bought back and usually has a high deductible. Best advice I can give you and your friend is to read and understand your policy.

Spin it any way you want, raising water is not covered.

[spacemanspiff]

If you are cancelled for coverage, can you still apply for an insurance claim?
not knowing your states laws re: insurance, i'd assume that when you missed your payment your carrier sent basically a notice of INTENT to cancel on a set day, giving you some time to pay the carrier.

now, if the cause of loss happened while the policy was still active, there is no reason why you should not be able to file a claim.

i'll let you all in on a trade secret: insurance rates are not set by companies. what you pay is based mainly on calculations by federal agencies. each company can file for deviations, credit/debits, and loss cost multipliers to be applied, but that is pretty much insignificant to the increases in base rates or deductible factors we see applied nationwide.

now, does anyone in class know the difference between a "primary cause of loss" and "secondary cause of loss"?

[Borachon]

documentedly call/notify your agent as soon as possible to say, "hey, my home is in the flood/hurricane/fire/zombie alien invasion area, I have to evacuate, I won't get a paycheck so I may not be paying my bill and I will probably be making a claim?"

Sitting in an area where society still functions often leads us to assume that other people are in the same situation. Imagine for a moment that postal service has just now been reestablished to many people. Also, that for many of the people, phone service is still none existent. Why? They were late paying their phone bills? No...that's not the problem. The problem is that the POLES that hold the phone lines have been swept off their foundations and deposited many many miles away. Electricity has been largely restored, but not universally. Relief supplies are coming in but often not distributed. FEMA housing trailers are reaching the coast at the rate of 500 a day, but the application process to live in them means there is a backlog of 8 months before you (the metaphorical you) can move into them. Until then, you remain in a shelter...a damaged home without electricity (fire danger if they reconnect a damaged home so they don't)....or a tent in a local park. It's about as screwed up as it can be.

In other words, most of the things we take casually for granted are no longer working there. Many people are using local phone service provided for free, but are limited in the time they can call. They can't remain on hold for 2 hours waiting for the musak to stop and take them to an agent.

I'm not sure you guys understand...given the comment that you boys made. So I'll try again.

My friend suffered NO...ZERO...NADA...COMPLETE GOOSE EGG....NEGATORY....damage from flood. He didn't NEED flood insurance. His house wasn't...I'll repeat that....WAS NOT flooded. Not one ounce of ocean water reached his door. There was a lot of furniture ruined by RAIN water that came in thru his roof, which was largely torn off and thrown into the street.

Let me repeat that again for the hard of hearing. My friend was 10 MILES away from the ocean. The water stopped a good five miles away from his location. The ONLY possible causes that might have damaged his home were WIND, and/or an Al-Queda strike team targetting his home specifcally because of the rebel flag hanging on a pole in his yard. We've discounted this second possibility.

So I'm sure he DID read his policy and I'm certain he DOES know his rights and obligations on this. Those don't matter a damn though when the adjuster is willing to lie his head off. Let that sort of thing happen once or twice and I can understand why people would want to murder them.

THAT is what I'm saying is happening. I'm saying that insurance companies, who know they are going to be paying a huge amount of money on this one, are trying to either get out of paying altogether, or they are trying to delay paying for a few years until a court makes them. Meanwhile, you make people live in the street who would otherwise be reconstructing their homes. I think that another tactic being used, in addition to flat out lying about what actually caused the damage, is to cancel service and then claim that the service was not in effect at the time of the hurricane. How so? Like the man wrote, just cancel their policy because they didn't pay on time. Does this man have a good case for the court? Absolutely...he'll win in walk....about 5 years from now. Leaving the insurance company to say, " :neener: " to him until then.

The separate issue of whether people who recieved both flood AND wind damaged are going to get paid is, according to the lawsuits already filed, going to be eventually brought up before a court. My sympathy is with the home owners obviously. But the atmosphere of "SAVE ALL MONEY AT ALL COSTS" that is coming from the insurance companies is being fueled by their worry that this one is going to be the biggest payout EVER for their industry. IMO they are going to use every trick...legal or not....in order to save money.

Like I said, those with money or political influence will be paid promptly. Those with lesser means who can't immediately sue (which means most of the refugees) will just suffer until then.

If the nice ole insurance companies come along and prove me wrong, I'll be happy. But right now, they are about the lowest industry I can think of. Liars and con artists is my charitable description of them.

[spacemanspiff]

I think that another tactic being used, in addition to flat out lying about what actually caused the damage, is to cancel service and then claim that the service was not in effect at the time of the hurricane. How so? Like the man wrote, just cancel their policy because they didn't pay on time. Does this man have a good case for the court? Absolutely...he'll win in walk....about 5 years from now. Leaving the insurance company to say, " " to him until then.
gee if only there were a state agency that a person could contact to report such atrocities!

by the way, its good that you started that sentence with "I think".


edit - btw part deux, cancelling a policy for nonpayment is 100% lawful. its in the terms and conditions of all policies. heck, we have carriers that tell us we are too lenient when we give a second notice!


edit the sequel: this time its personal!
Liars and con artists is my charitable description of them.
thats the usual response from people who do not understand insurance coverages.

[ziadel]

The insurance industry was the only industry that doesn't complain or ask for a government bail out everytime something bad happens to them.

um, I don't have the option of operating my motor vehicle without insurance.
Not even a snowmobile.


how is that not a government bail out?

[Borachon]

You got me curious about the earthquake insurance thing. So I did a search. If you search "earthquake insurance" "california" on Yahoo news you'll find a lot of sites about a proposed change in the rates. Here's one link:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2005/09/25/60148.htm


But if this is true and 15% of people in the whole state already have earthquake insurance (info from the link above), and assuming that these people aren't all clustered in the places that HAVE earthquakes in California (example: 0% have earthquake insurance in Sacramento, but 85% have it in Lompoc because earthquakes happen in Lompoc) and assuming that the earthquake hits in a place with only 15% covering them....I still think insurance companies would have a problem. 15% of California real estate is still pretty expensive. Lots of very expensive property there. So 15% of Los Angeles...let's say....would still be a hefty chunk....or do you disagree?

Further...let's get crazy....suppose the dual cause thing worked this time also....but AGAINST the insurance companies. How so you don't ask? The levee holding back the resevoir above Los Angeles breaks two days after the quake. Millions of gallons flood out the valley. Now then...is that flood damage or earthquake damage? I'd say flood. The earthquake was the cause of the flood...no doubt...but it wasn't the damage itself.

Car accidents caused by damaged street lights is another.

Another example....home survives intact....two days after the quake the gas line under the street breaks and burns down the whole neighborhood. Quake damage or fire? I'd say fire. The insurance companies would have to go to court and get a ruling otherwise.

My point is that even if earthquake damage directly is not covered...house shaken to the point of destruction...there would still be enough effects from an earthquake that would be covered under other policies. That's why I say it would be very difficult for insurance companies if that were to occur anytime anytime soon.

It would be somewhat opposite to what is happening on the Coast now though. The insurance company would be the one saying "the cause of ALL this damage was DIRECTLY related to the earthquake...and we don't pay." Whereas our law makers are saying, "The cause of all this damage was the hurricane...you need to pay."

[Borachon]

edit the sequel: this time its personal!

I call 'em the way I see 'em.

How would you describe a man who looks at damage that was clearly wind and announces it was something else? He's a liar.

Cancelling people's policies when they know the people can't pay right now is just another tactic.....I'd call that the actions of a con artist.

I've got a lot of friends and family on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi who are hurting right now. I'm in a bad mood. You want to make it personal...fine...but I'm NOT going to shut up about what is going on!

[Borachon]

how is that not a government bail out?

Ah...but what you failed to realize is that we citizens all WANTED the insurance companies to get mandatory car insurance.....it had NOTHING to do with the gigantic lobbying efforts that insurance companies were using in the state capitols! :rolleyes:



(Excellent point by the way....wish I'd thought of it.) :D

[Borachon]

gee if only there were a state agency that a person could contact to report such atrocities!

I'm not sure that we DO have an agency we could report them to. I'd be willing to bet that 80% of population doesn't know off the top of their heads the phone number of this organization...if it exists. So they won't be calling...if it is even there in the first place. If no one reports it, then did it ever happen? I know it did. My friend knows it did. But outside of his lawsuit that he WILL file, how many other people are going to know what they did?
Maybe they'll do it enough to reach the attention of the news organizations.

Secondly, if it exists, what does it actually DO when it receives a complaint? Does it immediately contact the insurance company and threaten to arrest the heads of the company? Or does it advise them that they are being watched very closely? Or what? Fine them? Jail them? I seriously don't know, but I suspect...with the lobby our insurance company has in this state....that it would be the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. And it certainly won't be immediate. It'll be two years...or four...five, before they are punished for this behavior. Time enough for them to have made money.

And if it does make it to the news media, then I'm going to laugh and laugh at all you people who called me a liar...and told me how the good insurance company would NEVER try to cheat...oh no, not them!.....

[Borachon]

cancelling a policy for nonpayment is 100% lawful. its in the terms and conditions of all policies. heck, we have carriers that tell us we are too lenient when we give a second notice!

And you wonder why people after a disaster want to put a bullet through your head for pulling this kinda stunt? Not giving second notice to people who have suffered a disaster and been without food, shelter, power, phone service and who now want a semblence of their life back is a good thing to you?

I'm sure it's lawful. I'm also sure it was never read among the 10 million lines of small print that were in the document. The insurance lobby in our state capitol makes sure all the benefits go to insurance companies.

I'm not happy with your profession, but I'll admit my ignorance of it, and I'll ask you if you can explain something. I don't promise I'll become enlightened and learn to like what representatives of the insurance industry are doing here, but at least I'll understand you legal standpoint. So here's my question: Are you saying that if a hurricane happened on Aug 29 and the policy was still good at this point, but that the person didn't manage to pay their money (bank was destroyed...let's say) for the next month, that the insurance company is legally entitled to not pay for the damages even the though the policy was good at the time?

[c_yeager]

Sitting in an area where society still functions often leads us to assume that other people are in the same situation.

Werent you posting on this site within a couple days of Katrina? Couldnt you have helped your friend? Or is it the inurance companies job to babysit him?

Obviously when someone that you have never met gets shot it is automaticaly justified because of their job. Way to be part of the solution :rolleyes:

[spacemanspiff]

Secondly, if it exists, what does it actually DO when it receives a complaint? Does it immediately contact the insurance company and threaten to arrest the heads of the company? Or does it advise them that they are being watched very closely? Or what? Fine them? Jail them? I seriously don't know, but I suspect...with the lobby our insurance company has in this state....that it would be the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. And it certainly won't be immediate. It'll be two years...or four...five, before they are punished for this behavior. Time enough for them to have made money.
they start an investigation. like all government beuracracies the wheels move slowly. but the Division of Insurance (Thanks for the quick link google!) (http://www.fldfs.com/) does not take matters of this nature lightly.

Are you saying that if a hurricane happened on Aug 29 and the policy was still good at this point, but that the person didn't manage to pay their money (bank was destroyed...let's say) for the next month, that the insurance company is legally entitled to not pay for the damages even the though the policy was good at the time?
carriers are on the hook if the loss occured while the policy was active. and in some cases, with some lines of coverage, claims can be filed for quite some time after the policy expires.

thats why a carrier must send a "Direct Notice of Cancellation", and are required to give xx number of days of their intention. and if the carrier wishes to nonrenew they must also give plenty of advance warning to the insured. i laugh when i hear people talk about their carrier cancelling out of the blue. it just doesnt happen that way. unless the insured has initiated the cancellation, a notice must be sent.

[Borachon]

Obviously when someone that you have never met gets shot it is automaticaly justified because of their job. Way to be part of the solution

Lie about the damages and blame it on something else....way to go guys...create a problem....good job insurance guys!

No ones been shot. There has been no report of anyone being shot for being an insurance agent. There WAS an article about why insurance agents were AFRAID of being shot. Now that I see how they think and how they treat people, I understand why. If I lied to people and took the equivalent of thousands of dollars away from them, I'd be afraid I'd get shot too! ;)

I said that I UNDERSTOOD why someone would want to shoot them. Because the insurance companies have got all the cards stacked their way...especially for poorer homeowners who were struggling before the hurricane. You'd have to take them to court to see some money back, and the insurance companies know that most of their customers won't be able to do that financially. The homeowners who have been lied to will have no way to get even...financially...and the insurance company has stacked all the laws against them winning. For a lot of them, there won't be any other way to get back at them except by slugging the insurance agent, or slashing his tires...or putting a bullet thru a his head. Because the odds are stacked against him.

So I'd be scared too if I was an insurance agent right now and I was going to tell people that the tens of thousands of dollars they've spent over 25 years didn't mean a thing...that it was all for nothing. I'd be ESPECIALLY upset if the b****** stood there and lied...TO MY FACE...when he knows....knows for a fact...that the damage was caused by wind. Something that IS covered under the policy. My friend was very charitable in his response, I think. He just told him that he'd sue. Which he has means to do, although he doesn't LOOK like it.

As to helping my friend, I've done what I can. But communication is still spotty with the coast at best....cell phone towers are not fully functional and are subject to a lot of disruptions when they are.

He's done a good job though. He's gotten his insurance adjuster to come down and look his place over. Of course...like I said...he wasn't in the hardest hit area either. His electricity came on about ten days ago so he isn't suffering so bad. Gas and food are still problems, and he can't drink his water...contaminated. Otherwise, he's doing good. Unlike the first ten days or 2 weeks after. They were having gunfire around them at night...which sounds a lot louder when no motors are running and there are no lights. He said that was one of the bad things...not knowing what the gunfire at night meant.

[Borachon]

unless the insured has initiated the cancellation, a notice must be sent

They are only required to SEND the notice...correct? They don't have to wait for the policy holder to contact them back acknowledging that their policy is being cancelled?

So they send it out.....to an address that no longer exists. The house that had the mailbox is now gone completely. And the highly vaunted Postal Service is not currently operating with deliveries. And the person who is to receive the mail is perhaps in a shelter in Jackson or Atlanta or somewhere, and may not get his mail for months. So it might be xx number of days before the person even knows his policy is being cancelled, by which time it's too late for him to file a claim.

Am I about right on that?

Thanks for the Division of Insurance link....but do you know if we have one in Mississippi? This link goes to Florida.

[pete f]

One thing that has not been brought up. Insurance Companies are some of the richest in America. I used to sell Commercial Real Estate and in doing so I soon found out that something like 70% of the properties that I was leasing out were owned by the big insurance companies. They have to put that premium money someplace and they have chosen Real Estate as one way to keep it. They then use those buildings to create further wealth for the companies in terms of rent. These buildings are then removed from the cash reserves of the company allow the company to then say cash reserves are not large enough to pay claims and that they need to raise rates to cover premiums.

Now a few people have come on here and said Risk is not Gambling. Yes it is. Risk is educated gambling. insurance is risk spread out over a large pool. Is it a gamble? Yes of course. The actuary tries hard to set the rates at such a level that the insured is paid and the insurer stays in business. but this does not always happen. This is where the re-insurer stands. It is his job to look at a company take premiums from that comapny and spread the risk out over many insurers to prevent teh collapse of the pool.

Statistics can be very reliable, but to refer to statistics as law of large numbers is still risky, All the large numbers do is to reduce the risk to members of the pool.

Insurance companies love to tell you are in good hands or are your family, but they never tell you they will screw you in the shorts if they get the chance. In most cases it is the insurance company that hires the adjuster to tell you what is covered and what is not covered. In most cases the poor sap who has not read the policy or for whom the policy is now cinders or mush or blown away, is out of options. Insurance Companies want you to assume they are taking the risk of insuring you when in most cases they have specifically written the policy to remove as much risk as possible.

My mother in law lived in a small town for a while and during a storm had a large tree strike her house. Now this was a tornado storm and although the tornado did not strike her house, she had a large tree strike her house. and cause some serious damage. The insurance company tried to claim that the tree was not her tree, it was a neighbors, and said neighbor was responsible and to contact her nieghbors insurance company. Now this was a nearly 3000 pound tree 18 inches in diameter, and we were now told we had prove it was the neighbors tree. and then she told that she was fifty percent liable because she had not kept HER tree trimmed up.
it took many weeks of phone calls and letters untill the bills were paid to fix the roof on her house. All because the insurance company did not want to pay out on policiies they had written.

Insurance companies are a necessary evil the world. A good agent can keep you and your family covered, but hope he sticks around when you need to deal with the pernt company when you need to file a big claim.

[spacemanspiff]

look further in the link.

yes, the carrier or its representative must only prove they SENT the notice. whether or not the insured acknowledges it is immaterial.

like many who hate the insurance industry, you are mistakenly bringing the 'years of paying premiums'. just because someone pays $10,000 a year for 50 years doesnt mean they are more entitled to a claim being paid than someone who paid $1,000 for just one year of coverage. your premiums are not ever considered in an aggregate form. its ANNUAL.

And you wonder why people after a disaster want to put a bullet through your head for pulling this kinda stunt?
actually, in my office (and we are not the company, we represent them and can underwrite for them) we have had enraged insureds come pounding on our door demanding we reinstate their coverage (insured was out of town when the DNOC was sent, never knew we were canceling) or write out a check for millions of dollars to settle a claim.
i'll go into more detail on that one:

an insured had a lodge, operational during summer, and only a caretaker during the winter. to save money, the insured took some buildings on the premises off the policy, one of those buildings was the home the caretaker was staying in.
the caretaker and his wife went to a nearby bar, leaving their infant child home alone. a fire started, the home burned, the baby died. the next day the caretaker is screaming in our office (remember we are not the company, and even if we were we could not write out settlement checks without the loss being adjusted) that we owed him millions of dollars for the loss of his precious baby that he cared so much about.
we dont deal with the public, the only contact we have with the outside world is the company and the retail agent. the agent is the go-between for us and the insured. we told the caretaker that it was only the insured who could speak, and they would have to speak to their agent.

long story short, the company refused to compensate for the death of the baby, because it happened in a building not covered by the policy. the agent suggested to the caretaker to take it up with the state, and they filed a 'wrongful death suit'. yes, the caretaker filed for wrongful death against the company even though him and his wife, both loving caring parents, both left the child alone so they could get drunk. the agent sided with the caretaker, blaming us for the insured choosing to save money and not insure the caretakers dwelling.

the company fought it for several years. in the end, they paid out a few hundred thousand, a good portion of it going to the caretakers lawyers. the settlement did not indicate the carrier was responsible, it just was cheaper to do that than spend 10 years in court where they would have won the case.


in the ten years i have worked in the insurance industry, i have not once seen any company behave as demonic as people assume them to be.

[ziadel]

ya know, if this is happening, I can't help but think the mortgage companies are going to get involved. Because most people are'nt going to pay a mortgage on a house, that has been destroyed when the insurance company their mortgage bank told them they had to get a policy with, will not cover damages.

Insurance no pay, mortgage holders no pay, mortgage holders no pay, mortgage companies are going to go to bat against the insurance companies.

[Borachon]

i have not once seen any company behave as demonic as people assume them to be.


Get out of the office more and come see it from our side of the fence. Maybe it would be a real education.

The Nazis at Nuremburg, when asked, said they were doing their sacred duty to God and country and didn't regret a single moment. They were correct in what they did, and legal for having done so because the laws at the time supported what they were doing. The BELIEVED in what they were doing.

I'm not saying the insurance industry is as bad as the Nazi movement; I'm just saying that belief in your organizations essential correctness, fairness, and good business policy may look incredibly different to those who are on the outside looking in.

just because someone pays $10,000 a year for 50 years doesnt mean they are more entitled to a claim being paid than someone who paid $1,000 for just one year of coverage.

True...but can you understand why they might be a LITTLE more disappointed than someone who had only paid $1000 for a year? Especially if they've never had a reason to file a claim previously.

In normal times, insurance coverage seems to work fairly well. The industry as a whole....I'll regret admitting this I'm sure...is peopled with individuals who are good, bad, and indifferent...much like the rest of society. I'm sure there are some really good hearted insurance folks out there right now.

These are not quite normal times. Big hurricanes like this cost a lot of money and there probably aren't many more ways of increasing insurance money inflow. Mandatory life insurance to match mandatory car insurance might be next...but the insurance industry would have a hard sell on that one.

Additionally, there will be a lot of policies paid out for things like life insurance, and auto damage, and whatever else insurance companies cover...not just housing insurance. Huge amount of money. In addition to all the other damage claims that come in from around the country for regular stuff that happens all the time.

But that potential threat to the insurance industry that this huge payout might be shouldn't keep insurance companies from honoring their word. Lying about what has happened to people who have lost everything is LOW. Cuss worthy in fact.... :cuss:

like many who hate the insurance industry
You'll have to pardon me. My hatred for the insurance industry is new. It's a fresh hate so I'm feeling it more keenly right now. Before this recent hurricane, I paid my car insurance and that was the only dealings I had. Let my hatred settle into something more familiar and give me time to think of ways both big and small to hurt the industry and get back to me later. I'll have more colorful things to tell you then.

mortgage companies are going to go to bat against the insurance companies.
Possibly. If so, expect it to be settled in about ten years. The only ones who'll profit will be the attorneys who represent both sides. It will serve ONE vital purpose for the insurance industry though. Time. It will give them time to get back on their feet, and for people to give their lawsuits.

Now a few people have come on here and said Risk is not Gambling. Yes it is. Risk is educated gambling. insurance is risk spread out over a large pool. Is it a gamble? Yes of course. The actuary tries hard to set the rates at such a level that the insured is paid and the insurer stays in business. but this does not always happen. This is where the re-insurer stands. It is his job to look at a company take premiums from that comapny and spread the risk out over many insurers to prevent teh collapse of the pool.
I like the cut of your jib. :D Excellent posting.

[carebear]

Read the disclosures in your mortgage documents.

You are required to show household hazard coverage at the time of closing. If Federal Flood says the home is in a flood zone, you are required to get a flood policy as well.

The provider of that household coverage, by law, cannot be mandated by the mortgage provider and that insurance provider can be changed at the insured's discretion.

The hazard insurance provider is required to notify the mortgage servicer if coverage lapses by action or inaction of the insured and, if they refuse to reinstate it, coverage (more expensive, think SR22) can only then be force-placed by the servicing company.

Remember, until you pay off your mortgage, you don't "own" the property. You hold title, but default means the true owner (the lien holder) takes over again.

I don't think the automatic notification stands for the flood insurance, so cheap morons can let that lapse and then suffer the consequences (as it seems is endemic in NO).


Oh, if an adjuster showed up at my triplex and said wind damage was water, I'd take my own pictures, write a nasty gram to my agent, his boss, the company VP and my Congressman. I'd then contact a lawyer to do the same. And, I'd get my satisfaction.

I'm not sure why people apparently think they are going to get handed a briefcase of cash the day after they call in their claim.

[Ryder]

My home is paid, has been for a long time. I won't give 2 cents to insure it. Last thing in the world I want if my house burns down is an investigation. Yes I that little faith in humanity. Rebuilding on my own dime is nothing in comparison to a 30 year sentence for asron just because some insurance company wants to weasel out of a payout.

I see lawyers advertising on TV for clients who've been stonewalled by the insurance companies. They promise to make them pay. That isn't fiction. It happens... Just not to me.

Insurance companies don't whine? Haha, ever heard of lobbying? If they could get back all the money they've spent lobbying lawmakers over the years they could pay off these hurricane claiims.

[spacemanspiff]

I'm not sure why people apparently think they are going to get handed a briefcase of cash the day after they call in their claim.
yo carberry! lets hit the bushco tonight! got two briefcases of cash that was supposed to go to claim settlement but guess who forgot to sign their application! whooooooooooooooo hooooooooooooooooooooo
we're gonna party
like its $1,999,999.
ohhh yeahh!

:evil:

[spacemanspiff]

http://www.independentagent.com/VU/NonMember/DisasterFAQs.htm