I’m kinda worried here. The article does state that the previous lender required flood on the property. Why, when you refinance the same property, would a reasonable person feel that flood insurance was no longer required or necessary? This should have been a red flag for the owners, the lender and for land safe.
I can’t wait to sue my flood zone determination company for advising me that my home IS NOT within a “Flood Zone”. As a result, I did not purchase flood insurance. That is a false sense of security because FLOODS or TIDAL SURGE or LAND SLIDES can occur ANYWHERE (Even on top of a MOUNTAIN in CA). They told me I was not in a flood zone, but since “FLOODS” can and do occur ANYWHERE, that “Non Flood Zone Determination” IS FALSE. Everyone that has suffered a flood loss, within a NON FLOOD ZONE should SUE their flood determination company. And, as far a the future is concerned, the ENTIRE COUNTRY IS in a FLOOD ZONE and banks should require all mortgaged homes to be insured for FLOOD loss too. I would be happy to write special NON FLOOD Zone policies for EVERYONE that had been previously AND FALSELY determined to be within a NON FLOOD ZONE.
Be clear. All the homes and businesses are in a Flood Zone. But only those mapped as being in a Special Flood Hazard Area are required by their lenders by the Flood Act to maintain flood insurance. And, yes, many years the majority of the property damaged by floods is not in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
They were probably thrilled that they didn’t have to pay for flood insurance. But, don’t blame someone else when you decide not to take out flood insurance.
I’m kinda worried here. The article does state that the previous lender required flood on the property. Why, when you refinance the same property, would a reasonable person feel that flood insurance was no longer required or necessary? This should have been a red flag for the owners, the lender and for land safe.
I can’t wait to sue my flood zone determination company for advising me that my home IS NOT within a “Flood Zone”. As a result, I did not purchase flood insurance. That is a false sense of security because FLOODS or TIDAL SURGE or LAND SLIDES can occur ANYWHERE (Even on top of a MOUNTAIN in CA). They told me I was not in a flood zone, but since “FLOODS” can and do occur ANYWHERE, that “Non Flood Zone Determination” IS FALSE. Everyone that has suffered a flood loss, within a NON FLOOD ZONE should SUE their flood determination company. And, as far a the future is concerned, the ENTIRE COUNTRY IS in a FLOOD ZONE and banks should require all mortgaged homes to be insured for FLOOD loss too. I would be happy to write special NON FLOOD Zone policies for EVERYONE that had been previously AND FALSELY determined to be within a NON FLOOD ZONE.
ChaChing!
What was the number I read somewhere? I think it said something like 80% of all flood claims occur in areas that are not in declared flood zones.
Be clear. All the homes and businesses are in a Flood Zone. But only those mapped as being in a Special Flood Hazard Area are required by their lenders by the Flood Act to maintain flood insurance. And, yes, many years the majority of the property damaged by floods is not in Special Flood Hazard Areas.
They were probably thrilled that they didn’t have to pay for flood insurance. But, don’t blame someone else when you decide not to take out flood insurance.