Little by little, homeowners insurance will be useless

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4118660.html
Aug. 15, 2006, 3:47PM
Katrina damage ruling bad news for homeowners


By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
Associated Press

GULFPORT, Miss. — A federal judge ruled today that an insurance company's policies do not cover damage from wind-driven water in a decision that could affect hundreds of upcoming cases related to property damage from Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ruled that a Mississippi Gulf Coast couple cannot collect damages from storm surge caused by Katrina because Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.'s policies do not cover wind-driven water damage.

Senter Jr. said Paul and Julie Leonard of Pascagoula could be compensated for damage that they could prove was caused by high winds, however.

"Almost all the damage to the Leonard residence is attributable to the incursion of water," Senter wrote in the 13-page decision.

Senter's ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of other court challenges to the insurance industry for denying billions of dollars in claims after the Aug. 29 hurricane ravaged the coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

-----------------

Every year I receive a letter from my homeowners insurance listing what is NOT covered on my policy. You know things are bad when there's a long list of what's not covered. :-(

Seems more like 'organized extortion'.

which USED to actually suggest that one was covered if something happened to us. Such is no longer the case. :-(

kick our heads.

:grr:

It's a ripoff. You could buy a new house after a few years, for what you pay in insurance premiums in some places.

if you have money, any money, financial institutions are dedicated to finding ways to remove you from it. manditory car insurance, manditory HO policies - these do little to protect you. They, instead, do wonders to protect the financial standing of those companies.
What's more important? AIG's profits or your lifestyle? The answer all depends on who can buy a senator(s) in DC faster.



I bet you lose.

Could you pay to replace my car and cover my medical expenses after you cause a crash?

I certainly couldn't cover those costs.

Now insurance rates and company profits are another thing.

Your own policy should cover you in the event of an accident, regardless of what kind, if any coverage the other driver carries and if your state had a "no-fault" insurance law, if YOU have insurance you'd be covered and the issue of WHO is at fault wouldn't exist.

Would your life insurance coverage provide the payout your family would desire in the event of your death? Should THAT insurance be MANDATORY too?

Shoud everyone be required to carry "stupid thing I did" insurance whenever people do stupid things?

They would suggest that you have a million or two set aside to cover personal losses, along with the other couple of million you have set aside for your retirement.

responsibility. Hard work.

They *the plunderers not the little guys* wouldn't know work or sacrifice if they were sunk in it up to their ears.

I think insurance companies are pretty evil and we are stuck with them for now certainly.

I pay when I see the doc

I pay for prescriptions

In twenty years, I have had two medical issues other than just routine checkups. One was not covered. One was covered only about 25%.

By my calculations, I have given various crooked finance industry insurance companies nearly $100K during my life in exchange for a doctor's visit less than once a year, an X-ray or two, two years of taking a 50-cent pill every day, one day in the emergency room and having a scope stuck in an orifice a couple of times. I've had to pay another $25K or so in copays etc. out of pocket.

I have medical insurance (paid for out of my own pocket), but I can't afford to use it.

Insurance, like credit from the financial corporations (they are all the same corporations) has become a scam.

health coverage who went into the hospital!!!!!!

but you would have to get a special rider for that

additional insurance to make up the gap, such as flood insurance.

here in California, imagine our surprise to find out that earthquakes are not covered. No, earthquake coverage is separate from the regular home insurance. It costs a fortune and then the deductible is something like fifty thousand dollars or something outrageously close to that. I found out that most people here don't even carry it. Amazing.

And the newest addition to the list is damage from terrorist threats (or something like that).

Of course, if the earthquake damaged your house and burst the gas pipes, I'm betting they'd claim the resulting fire wasn't earthquake damage and would refer you to your HO insurer who would in turn deny your claim because it was earthquake damage....

The exception that boggles my mind is that earth movement isn't insurable at all yet there are houses perched on every slope.

}(

Too many claims, however small, and they drop you. Even calling too many times to see if something is covered can get your policy cancelled. And then trying to get a new policy somewhere else can cost as much as ten times the previous policy. What a racket!

I wouldn't use my insurance unless the house burnt to the ground.

Insurance should protect against unpredictable and unlikely events. Automobile accidents and tornadoes generally fall in this category so insurance makes sense. Illness, hurricanes, and floods don't. Almost everyone gets sick at some time. Hurricanes regularly hit certain coastal areas. Flood plains flood. So insurance doesn't really make sense in these areas (This is one reason the country is having so much trouble dealing with health care. The insurance model isn't appropriate but we keep trying to use it anyway.)