You would think that all of our democrat green partners would think of a way to allow the goverment to subsidize these poor waterfront homeowners instead of fighting them. Its only paper money
If you move wind to the flood then all of us would then need a HO and Flood/Wind so we would pay for it buy having two policies.
If insurers keep it then we pay higher HO policy.
If we make contractors build better guess what…….they charge more (and you still get hit with higher insurance as they are taking on more risk).
Green groups should still to enviromental NOT INSURANCE….well maybe to get carriers to stop printing so many copies of the same form.. Ah there is a issues they should take a stand on!
The only real solution is to require property insurance policies to include flood damage (as now defined by the NFIA) to all property insurance forms. This woll eliminate all the litigation, and get the government out of a program that is running massive deficits being paid for by the taxpayers. Flood can still be priced based on exposure, just like the property risk is.
True, but how many of the overwhelming majority (75%???)of the U.S. HO’s and businesses within 100 miles of our coast’s will be able to afford the actuarially sound rates? As I understand it his concern is wind vs flood and who pay’s (or not) when both occur. If correct then a compromise would be to ammend the bill that NFIP will charge a premium for wind coverage but only be liable when damages occur simultaniously with a declared “FLOOD”. Take that one step further and private insurer’s could develop rates and endorse their policies to be excess of NFIP when the consumer maintains proper underlying coverage/limits.
I would prefer our gov. agencies collecting something then giving it away post storm. Keep an eye on Florida….disaster of historical proportion waiting to happen.
You would think that all of our democrat green partners would think of a way to allow the goverment to subsidize these poor waterfront homeowners instead of fighting them. Its only paper money
If you move wind to the flood then all of us would then need a HO and Flood/Wind so we would pay for it buy having two policies.
If insurers keep it then we pay higher HO policy.
If we make contractors build better guess what…….they charge more (and you still get hit with higher insurance as they are taking on more risk).
Green groups should still to enviromental NOT INSURANCE….well maybe to get carriers to stop printing so many copies of the same form.. Ah there is a issues they should take a stand on!
Underwriter… that was a joke, right?
If not, I’m guessing you dictate most of your correspondence?
Holy smokes, edit first!
The only real solution is to require property insurance policies to include flood damage (as now defined by the NFIA) to all property insurance forms. This woll eliminate all the litigation, and get the government out of a program that is running massive deficits being paid for by the taxpayers. Flood can still be priced based on exposure, just like the property risk is.
True, but how many of the overwhelming majority (75%???)of the U.S. HO’s and businesses within 100 miles of our coast’s will be able to afford the actuarially sound rates? As I understand it his concern is wind vs flood and who pay’s (or not) when both occur. If correct then a compromise would be to ammend the bill that NFIP will charge a premium for wind coverage but only be liable when damages occur simultaniously with a declared “FLOOD”. Take that one step further and private insurer’s could develop rates and endorse their policies to be excess of NFIP when the consumer maintains proper underlying coverage/limits.
I would prefer our gov. agencies collecting something then giving it away post storm. Keep an eye on Florida….disaster of historical proportion waiting to happen.