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: RE: Extremely Bad Idea
Please read your HO policy and QUOTE TOI ME VERBATEM where CO-IINSURANCE is mentioned. It does not exist. You answer questions from insurance 101 with the wrong answer. Premium is based upon the REPLACEMENT COST CLAUSE, not co-insurance, and it is designed to get more premium from the insured's pocket to the insuror's bank account. It is designed to ensure that adequate premium is collected. Only in your scenario where insured's could buy whatever they wanted in coverage would the carrier not get enough premium. Another simple question. How many times has the cost calculator the agent used to value to dwelling over value the dwelling? This is a premium increase without going before the commissioner. And in a non-valued policy state, there is no increased risk for the carrier. We need to educate our industry so we don't get such a bad reputation