Insurance in Mississippi

[kart racer]

Heard today some of the lawyers that sued the tobacco companies are going to the attorny general and make the insurance companies pay for flood damage even though it is not covered on a home owners policy.I work for an insurance company and believe me,you don't won't this to happen.The lawyers are claiming the insurance contract/policy is unconscionable and should be null and void-my reply would be fine,i'm refunding your policy premium and not paying squat...if this happens you can expect companies to pull out of several states and refuse to write any high risk areas-if there's any companies left.

 

[Old Fuff]

I have no doubt that there are some bottom-feeders out there that would try it, but I have serious doubts that they will get the courts to go along. As a number of big cities can tell you, they didn't do so well with firearms.

 

[Firethorn]

I can see future restrictions on 'riders', making it so it's a little more difficult to 'opt out' of flood, tornado, earthquake or such insurance.

I mean, as an owner, I really don't care how my house gets flattened, I just want/need the money to rebuild it(probably somewhere or someway safer).

"Oh, you mean that your standard insurance plan doesn't cover flood, tornado, fire, earthquake, hidden bug infestation, vandals, or thieves? Then what does it cover?"

 

[S_O_Laban]

Then what does it cover?"

It covers the Insurances Co's bottom line...which is why they are in business to begin with.... to make a profit.

Whether what Insurance co.'s do is moral or not is a whole nother topic.....

 

[beerslurpy]

How would the bank let you get a mortgage if you didnt have flood insurance on the Gulf Coast? It would be like living in New Orleans and not having looter insurance.

 

[NHBB]

+1 firethorn, being a homeowner I completely understand.

unfortunately, as statistics come into play... one out every 3 companies will fold their hand to avoid paying out.

 

[CAS700850]

The wife wrks for a major insurance company, and she's not heard about this one.

AS an attorney, I cannot see how it can be successful. An insurance plicy is nothing more than a contract. You agree to pay a premium, they agree to pay off a loss of certain types. You can alter the contract by seeking a rider, or personal article policy, which in turn will cost you more money.

Now, as I'm often asked, can they sue? Yes. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, as long as they have the filing fees. Can they succeed? Doubt it. Will they just settle to avoid the case? Seriously doubt it here, as the expense to the insurance companies would likely be greater than the cost of defending against the lawsuits.

But, then again, I'm a criminal lawyer, and might not know what I'm talking about.

 

[Art Eatman]

There is an honest question for some of the homes in Mississippi: Was the house destroyed by the 150-mph wind, or the 25-foot storm surge? for some structures, there is no way to figure out the specific cause.

It's an important question for a homeowner without the flood insurance. He claims wind; the insurance company claims water. There is no "blame" for either party.

My own personal opinion is that for most, it was a combination of the two, but that's just opinion...

Art

 

[Henry Bowman]

I have no doubt that there are some bottom-feeders out there that would try it, but I have serious doubts that they will get the courts to go along.

No need to. The whole issue is moot. The fed.gov will pay for everything. Heck, why not? Uncle Sugar is loaded. It's not like it's coming out of my pocket!