This should be considered countrywide. Some mortgage companies require replacement value on flood policies (up to the maximum limit) rather than the outstanding mortgage amount. You have to shop around to see what each mortgage company requires. One client with a $35,000 mortgage balance was required to purchase $250,000 of flood coverage in a flood zone resulting in a bill of over $3500. The owner also has to understand that they don’t have much protection if they only insure the outstanding mortgage.
I think that this legislation is well intended, but misinformed. This has the potential to reduce the cost of insurance by underinsuring the risk. So, when the house floods, the mortgageholder takes the entire proceeds of the insurance. Who (the taxpayers, that is who) will pay to clean up the property, debris, and complete the requirements of promulgation ordinances so that the property does not become an eyesore and a public health hazard? If the insurance is unaffordable, so is the property.
the bank gets the check , clears the mortgage , homeowner must borrow to repair. new fees ,application process , appraisals, distressed property. Everyone look’s to FEMA to bail them out. NFIP was established for banks this just reinforces that fact. Taxpayers and communities loose Banks win.
Not sure how carriers work in MA, but in FL most hazard carriers require the flood building limit matches the hazard limit, up to the $250k max.
Politicans can dictate whatever they want, but if the carrier has different guidelines in place none of that matters….oh wait, must be an election year. Want to make themselves look good with another useless bill.
Are they also going to rewrite the policy to remove the co-insurance clause or just leave the insured on the hook for that too? Wait, they will just blame the agents for not informing the insured of the risk of underinsuring the building.
This should be considered countrywide. Some mortgage companies require replacement value on flood policies (up to the maximum limit) rather than the outstanding mortgage amount. You have to shop around to see what each mortgage company requires. One client with a $35,000 mortgage balance was required to purchase $250,000 of flood coverage in a flood zone resulting in a bill of over $3500. The owner also has to understand that they don’t have much protection if they only insure the outstanding mortgage.
I think that this legislation is well intended, but misinformed. This has the potential to reduce the cost of insurance by underinsuring the risk. So, when the house floods, the mortgageholder takes the entire proceeds of the insurance. Who (the taxpayers, that is who) will pay to clean up the property, debris, and complete the requirements of promulgation ordinances so that the property does not become an eyesore and a public health hazard? If the insurance is unaffordable, so is the property.
the bank gets the check , clears the mortgage , homeowner must borrow to repair. new fees ,application process , appraisals, distressed property. Everyone look’s to FEMA to bail them out. NFIP was established for banks this just reinforces that fact. Taxpayers and communities loose Banks win.
Not sure how carriers work in MA, but in FL most hazard carriers require the flood building limit matches the hazard limit, up to the $250k max.
Politicans can dictate whatever they want, but if the carrier has different guidelines in place none of that matters….oh wait, must be an election year. Want to make themselves look good with another useless bill.
Are they also going to rewrite the policy to remove the co-insurance clause or just leave the insured on the hook for that too? Wait, they will just blame the agents for not informing the insured of the risk of underinsuring the building.