Most \”recommendations\” are already in place. Replacement cost is available for primary residences. Escrowed payments of premiums are happening. The major reason home buyers don\’t buy flood along with their homeowners insurance is they believe the promises of their realtors, neighbors. Many mortgage brokers also actively discourage borrowers from buying flood.
I am surprised that the Trade associationhasnt also asked for replacement cost provisions to be applied evenl to all residential structures. Currently only residences occupied year round [technically I think it is 270 days a year] are eligible for replacement cost adjustment. This is obviously discriminatory practice has no actuarial basis but is merely reflective of the political unpopularity of providing fair and equal treatment to those who are fortunate enopugh to own a second home.
I also have been advised that while the rest of the nation who make mortgages in A and V zones must take flood inmsurance, the Govt makes exceptions for those behind federally approved and constructed levees. Perhaps this explains why so many in the Katerina catastrophy had no coverage? Can anyone document this
as accurate? If Accurate ,perhaps this will be resolved in the future by some of the stated reforms
THE BIGGEST REFORM OF ALL WOULD BE TO ELIMATE 3&4 OR MORE TIMES OF GOING BACK TO THE WELL. IF A HOUSE IS REPLACED MORE THAN 2 TIMES THAT AREA SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS FOR FLOOD INSURANCE. STOP SUBSIDIZING OVER AND OVER
FM KELLER is right, some people have flood policies that are \”cash cows\” every year.
Plus what didn\’t flood 20 years ago floods regularly now as developments are carved out of the land, reducing water retention a zillion times over. 100 year flood elevation bench marks are sadly outdated.
Most \”recommendations\” are already in place. Replacement cost is available for primary residences. Escrowed payments of premiums are happening. The major reason home buyers don\’t buy flood along with their homeowners insurance is they believe the promises of their realtors, neighbors. Many mortgage brokers also actively discourage borrowers from buying flood.
I am surprised that the Trade associationhasnt also asked for replacement cost provisions to be applied evenl to all residential structures. Currently only residences occupied year round [technically I think it is 270 days a year] are eligible for replacement cost adjustment. This is obviously discriminatory practice has no actuarial basis but is merely reflective of the political unpopularity of providing fair and equal treatment to those who are fortunate enopugh to own a second home.
I also have been advised that while the rest of the nation who make mortgages in A and V zones must take flood inmsurance, the Govt makes exceptions for those behind federally approved and constructed levees. Perhaps this explains why so many in the Katerina catastrophy had no coverage? Can anyone document this
as accurate? If Accurate ,perhaps this will be resolved in the future by some of the stated reforms
THE BIGGEST REFORM OF ALL WOULD BE TO ELIMATE 3&4 OR MORE TIMES OF GOING BACK TO THE WELL. IF A HOUSE IS REPLACED MORE THAN 2 TIMES THAT AREA SHOULD BE OFF LIMITS FOR FLOOD INSURANCE. STOP SUBSIDIZING OVER AND OVER
FM KELLER is right, some people have flood policies that are \”cash cows\” every year.
Plus what didn\’t flood 20 years ago floods regularly now as developments are carved out of the land, reducing water retention a zillion times over. 100 year flood elevation bench marks are sadly outdated.