National News
Viewing comments for:
Bipartisan Flood Insurance 'Modernization' Bill Boosts Borrowing, Maximum Limits
National News March 27, 2007
U.S. Reps. Judy Biggert, R-Ill., and Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced bipartisan legislation to revamp the National Flood Insurance Program that boosts the program's borrowing authority to $21.5 ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: appraisals | Evan | Apr 2, 2007, 11:07 am |
| appraisals | LL | Mar 30, 2007, 7:58 pm |
| RE: RE: Higher Benefits won't Help - if | Evan | Mar 30, 2007, 7:50 am |
| RE: Higher Benefits won't Help - if | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 4:37 pm |
| Higher Benefits won't Help - if | dh | Mar 29, 2007, 3:55 pm |
| Thank you | adjusterjoe | Mar 29, 2007, 8:24 am |
| no appraisal needed | LL | Mar 28, 2007, 10:29 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Back to the Original Subject | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 2:13 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Back to the Original Subject | KAT | Mar 28, 2007, 1:58 pm |
| RE: RE: Back to the Original Subject | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 1:39 pm |
| RE: Back to the Original Subject | KAT | Mar 28, 2007, 1:28 pm |
| RE: second home owners again take a beating! | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 1:14 pm |
| Back to the Original Subject | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 11:07 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Ba | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 11:04 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Id | Linda | Mar 28, 2007, 10:57 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 10:40 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | Linda | Mar 28, 2007, 10:24 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 10:15 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 10:12 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | Linda | Mar 28, 2007, 9:59 am |
| Let us examine | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 9:24 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | djusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 8:59 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 8:51 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | Linda | Mar 28, 2007, 8:51 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 8:45 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | DH | Mar 28, 2007, 8:42 am |
| RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | ML | Mar 28, 2007, 8:39 am |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 8:35 am |
| RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | Linda | Mar 28, 2007, 8:11 am |
| RE: Annual Report... | adjusterjoe | Mar 28, 2007, 7:43 am |
| Annual Report... | DDT | Mar 28, 2007, 7:09 am |
| RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 27, 2007, 5:12 pm |
| RE: Premiums | adjusterjoe | Mar 27, 2007, 4:55 pm |
| Premiums | Andrew | Mar 27, 2007, 4:45 pm |
| RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 27, 2007, 4:02 pm |
| stricter building codes needed | Mike | Mar 27, 2007, 3:58 pm |
| second home owners again take a beating! | don Hester | Mar 27, 2007, 3:54 pm |
| RE: Extremely Bad Idea | Linda | Mar 27, 2007, 3:15 pm |
| RE: Extremely Bad Idea | Nan | Mar 27, 2007, 3:09 pm |
| Extremely Bad Idea | adjusterjoe | Mar 27, 2007, 2:47 pm |
| RE: flood losses | Linda | Mar 27, 2007, 1:51 pm |
| flood losses | Nan | Mar 27, 2007, 1:12 pm |
| RE: skeptical | Nan | Mar 27, 2007, 1:06 pm |
| skeptical | Compman | Mar 27, 2007, 12:33 pm |
| Back to article | ||



Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Extremely Bad Idea
I suggest you take out a HO policy and read Section 1 - Conditions, Item 3 Loss Setttlement - Covered property losses are settled as follows: item B: Buildings under coverage A or B at replacement cost without deduction for depreciation, subject to the following: 1) If, at time of loss, the amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building is 80% or more of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the cost to repair or replace, after application of deductible, and without the deduction for depreciation, but not more than the least of the following amounts: a) The limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building; b) the replacement cost of that part of the building damaged for like construction and use on the same premises or c) the necessary amount actually spent to repair or replace the damaged building.
2) If, at any time of loss, the amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building in this policy is less than 80% of the full replacement cost of the building immediately before the loss, we will pay the greater of the following amounts, but not more than the limit of liability under this policy that applies to the building: a) the actual cash value of that part of the building damaged; or b)that portion of the cost to repair or replace, after application of deductible and without deduction of depreciation, that part of the building damaged, which is the total amount of insurance in this policy on the damaged building BEARS TO 80% OF THE REPLACEMENT COST OF THE BUILDING.
That Mr. Adjuster just stated that co-insurance does apply to a HO policy.
I wonder just what you think a policy should pay out in say a fire loss where a house burns down. Should the company only pay 25% or 50% or 75% of the loss?
You really should rethink another career because you certainly do not know anyting about insurance.