What should happen to people without flood insurance?

It's very expensive and I know houses were flooded by Katrina that have stood unscathed for 150 years. I imagine a lot of old family homes belonging to poor and middle class people went uninsured because of the cost. On the other hand, I don't want to bail out someone who went down there 10 years ago to construct a second house that costs ten times as much as my single house. At the same time, how could anyone living on the coast not know they needed federal flood insurance?

If it's wind, it's hurricane damage. If it's water damage from a leaky roof, it's water damage. If it's water coming up from the ground, it's a flood. It doesn't matter if it's salt or fresh, rain water, snow melt or surge water. If the water is over the grass it's a flood.

I think it depends on the policy. If a hurricane tears the roof off of your house & then it rains inside, generally that is covered under your hurricane policy, even without a flood policy.

OTOH - If the damage is due to rising water from a hurricane, it is not covered.

It isn't always clear cut. There were several cases in Florida last year after our weekend hurricanes of homes with water damage inside but no structural damage outside. Insurance companies said they didn't pay for manufacturing defects. The builders said no one should expect a home to remain waterproof after three days of wind driven rain. I think in a lot of cases, the homeowners were stuck with the bill.

and maybe the zoning inspector go to jail. The proof is that other houses in the area were not damaged this way.

she was trying to organize a class action law suit for the builder to pay.

One of the items in the purchase contract was that she couldn't say negative things about the builder.

Also, the builder claims they don't repair anything not expressly covered by a warranty.

Back 15 years ago, we all had 1 insurance company for every policy. Then Hurricane after Hurricane hit the Carolinas and the Grand-Daddy of them all Andrew hit Miami. That was it. We had to have different insurance companies to handle your home insurance. Flood Insurance was taken over by the government (WTF), hurricane policies were seperated from regular homeowner's insurance and the rates went up.

We have been screwed ever since . . .

I'm not the right person to ask this question.

P.S. I don't live in a flood zone just outside of one, but it scares me not to have it.

Too many old dairy barns around here collapsed under the snow load because without cows there was no heat to melt the snow. We reinforced our barn and picked up a new policy after we passed inspection. My husband also shovels the snow off the roof whenever it gets deep. We carry earthquake insurance on a rider because even though upstate New York doesn't get many earthquakes, the potential is there. One of my questions is, how could people live in a hurricane area and not know they weren't covered?

Areas that never flooded before are flooding now. Even with insurance, it's not pretty. The storms are getting worse and with development all around, there's no place for the water to go.

exactly you live. If you are not in a federally recognized flood plain you can't get flood insurance. We had that problem up here after Isabelle two years ago. Places that had never flooded were under water. People decided to get flood insurance in case (after so many had no help at all). Told nope, no way , you are not in a flood plain. So what if new developments have started flooding in areas that had never flooded before, still not a flood plain no flood insurance allowed for you.

It would be interstig to find out how much pressure was applied and by whom to ensure that flood prone areas were not labeled flood plain. Wet-lands development anyone?

though. A big problem here is that we are/were a rural area. Small developments that have been around for decades with no flooding are getting flooded because of big developments put in above and around them. Above might only be 3 feet higher on a long gently sloping grade. Where little streams used to be able to run in the river is now houses and roads. So the water now runs down the streets to the lower, older developments. Basements now flood every time it rains in the old developments. Then something like Isabelle comes along, those house plus the new ones get flooded. There has been fighting over new developments and flooding around here, but the developers have the money. The one thing that might save the rural character of our county is the Amish buying farms.

BTW they are still fighting with insurance companies and FEMA over aid and Isabelle was two years ago. People in the Gulf have a long hard fight ahead of them.

I saw a family interviewed who had paid their home insurance faithfully for 20 years, didn't live in a flood plain, and insurance wasn't available because of that. Now, they get flooded by a hurricane powered by wind, and their insurance refuses to pay. I would be totally, unspeakably pissed off.
Class action suits might be the only alternative but could take years.

I'm sitting here in the North thinking that anyone who wasn't covered either didn't have the money or was too willfully ignorant and greedy to buy the insurance. Knowing you needed it and not being able to get it is another story. My husband was questioning hoiw anyone could get a mortgage without flood insurance. It's another story entirely if the local bank was making a killing lending money to build houses on a low ground.

When flooding of a major U.S. city which exists below sea level is recognized as one of the three most likely disasters to hit this nation is it expected that the Federal government has a responsibility to assist in disaster prevention/mitigation? When federal dollars to bolster levees that were considered capable of handling a Cat III hurricane at best are refused at the executive level is that city due it's day in court?

The city exists to support this nations agricultural trade and fossile fuel distribution needs.
If the misery of black poor people does not count to the movers and shakers of this once great nation then doesn't the economic safety of this nation count for some attention? Wasn't that self same economic king pin of America (New Orleans) damaged by gross negligence?

Did the Iraqis have rogue nation death and destruction insurance? No? Well they are getting
billions in theory for just that purpose. Even though it just gets deposited in a Halliburton account the sentiment to re-build is there.

Ahh nuts. This racist place that happens to be my home drives me insane most days.

It was a gawd damned tidal wave - wind driven storm surge caused by a fucking hurricane.

You want images of piers that remain in place and homes that were flattened by the TIDAL WAVE?

Don't play the insurance companies' games and don't damn folks living on the water because they didn't buy flood insurance. I was in a house 2 miles inland. It was at 14 foot elevation and the water still rose 9 feet in the house. The water did not creep in, it did not flow in, it surged in and it remained for hours, battering the house, waves slamming the structure and dislodging everything in its path.

THE DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY A FUCKING HURRICANE - not a flood.

If they say they'll cover damage from a hurricane caused surge, are you willng to see your premiums triple to pay the cost? I'm sorry for your loss, but it's been predicted for years that these storms were coming. That's why the insurance companies were so careful to specify wind damage but exclude flood damage.

It was wind driven storm surge - where the hell do you think that water came from? The winds gathered it up and brought it onto land - it was a tidal wave - not a "flood" - not rising waters.

Big difference and the insurance companies will soon learn that. Are you familiar with the litigation that occurred after Hurricane Camille? The insurance companies tried the same thing then, they lost several suits after hiring their big shot lawyers, then they realized they better settle up the pending cases.

Bad faith, punitive damages - those will hurt their profits more than paying the claims that are owed.

You can't get flood insurance in many areas that are prone to floods. At various times, we've had earthquake insurance. For awile it became cost prohibitive because insurance companies didn't want to insure for a regionwide catastrophic event. The state had to set up a pool in insurers to help so folks could get insurance.

Oh, sorry, I was just channelling * there for a second.

All homeowners and renters policies exclude damage from tidal surge, tsunami's, floods, windblown water. They will cover damages from rain for the same things. If the actual damage was caused by a peril such as govt. failure to properly maintain levees, then its questionable.

The vast majority of flood insurance is written by the Natl. Flood Insurance Progran, a division of FEMA. The NFIP policies are sold anywhere that the community participates in the program. It doesn't have to be a "flood plain", and rates get much, much cheaper as you get higher.

Many communities outside obvious flood areas do not participate, since there are requirements that will make the cost of new construction go up, as well as participation requirements. There are a few locations where the NFIP will not insure -- these are mostly repetitive flooded areas such as barrier islands (even then you can often get insurance if you build on stilts or other things).

There are excess and non-standard carriers. Most write policies that are over the 250k limit of the NFIP, or in areas where there is no Flood program. Regardless, they are expensive.

The NFIP through 2004 has brought in about 10B more in premiums than spent in claims -- a number most private insurers would love. Even with the Katrina damages, it will be unlikely to face a deficiet IF standard bond returns were included (like private insurers).

NFIP Insurance cost is directly proportional to the amount of participation by your community and your location. It can be as little as a few hundred dollars for a house, and less than a hundred for a renter's policy.

Personally, I don't believe the govt should be doing this -- rather the private marketplace should. I do believe that the government should provide a stop loss/reinsurance for large losses.

Developers build houses and people buy them in places that will be damaged or destroyed by a hurricane. Alternatively, places that were safe before are put in harm's way by later development. Private companies won't offer insurance because the risk is too high. People won't buy government insurance OR local powers-that-be won't allow it because an honest assessment of risk will stop all that development. The disaster comes, and now who picks up the bill? I'm sorry for those involved, but should people in high tax, high regulation states be handed the tab? This is an important question given that the push is to rebuild in the same places that were hit this time. How about a surtax on big developers instead?

This is what was done after the Mississippi river floods in 1997. You purchase the property, place it in conservation, restore the environment, and pay the people to rebuild in locations where this will not happen next time around.

rebuilding in another location and using this land for conservation would be the SMART thing - so what makes you think this administration will do it.

But, the other problem with your idea is this - the lowest lying land is where the poorest lived. They didn't own their homes, they rented. If we do not allow those areas to be rebuilt, where will these people live? They can't live too far out, they can't afford cars and must rely on walking or public transportation to get to their jobs in tourism and shipping, all easier if they are in a centralized location.

My impression is that the closer to the beach, the higher the cost. I can see paying people to rebuild elsewhere once, but not to keep building on the beach.