Posted On: May 14, 2007, 2:08 pm CDT

Posted By: Mjolnir

Brian- I understand what you are saying, and I agree with most of it, but I would like to point out one thing.

You, yourself, pointed out that in cases where there was even a partial house left that the major carriers paid.

You also agree that away from possible flooding losses wind claims were paid.

However, claims close to the ocean weren't paid.

Some of those denials of coverage are probably fraud, just based on the law of averages.

However, many of them are due to a single exclusion in the policy.

You know- the one that said that if the home was destroyed by flood the policy wouldn't pay for the wind damage?

So... claims close to the sea where some house was left standing with evidence of both wind and water damage were paid. Claims far away from the sea damaged by wind were paid. Claims close to the sea with no home left for evidence are under dispute.

Even if (using your reasoning) the number of open claims is 10 or 15 percent, it would still appear that the vast majority of insureds got some sort of recompense.

Was their fraud?

Probably.

Is every denied claim a fraud case?

Probably not.

Should we imprison every insurance exec and turn over risk management to the people who administer medicare?

Not a chance in heil.