Posted On: March 14, 2006, 4:40 am CST

Posted By: miles

I'm not sure which is right. Maybey the policies we have all bought (and sold) in the past are too ambiguous and unfortunately this issue needs the attention of the court system!! Seems to me if the Insurance companies do not want to offer flood coverage they need to state it differently in the contract. Like, " Flood is totally excluded". Fllod is defined as driven water by storms, rising water by any force, ect ect. Of course and except wind driven rain.
I think clarity is what is needed here not silence and assumptions.
Assumptions are what get is into trouble and allow the laeyers to plan on finacial successes into the future. I do not believe the companies should have to pay for something they didnt sell. I do think companies , in an effort to put the right foot forward, need to make some offer thats in the middle of the road such as: Pay the premiums we would have charged you for flood and well pay half the claim less deductibles. While this isnt the best position for the companies i do believe it would prevent the cmpanies from spending so much legal money to defend themselves.
The coastal plans are twice as bad. If you didnt carry flood they are paying wind. In most cases ive found unless you threaten suits or are a friend of the administrators of the plan.