And then was at least one person in the insurance industry in texas who knew of the potential flooding risk and still claimed they were hoping it was solely a flooding event because they said flooding is not nearly as bad as damage caused by high winds/tornadoes.
The same guy who thinks forecasters are wrong and biased and people should rely on the Farmer’s Almanac, and that the almost 100% of climate scientists believing in and confirming climate change she these kinds of effects are biased, lying, lefties. Seems like a good case if somebody paid him to advise on risk and was harmed.
My question is did their insurance agent offer them flood coverage? If not why not?
Addicks and Barker reservoirs are known flood plains. The National Flood Insurance Program maps would or should have bore this fact out to property owners.
I lived in Houston for 14 years. Meyerland/South Post Oak Road area to be exact as to my neighborhood. Willow Waterhole Bayou ran behind my house. It was normally dry or near dry. In 1983 after Hurricane Alicia we had a storm move through one night dumping over 8 inches in 6 hours. the bayou flooded. My home flooded. I purchased flood coverage as my home was too close for comfort to that bayou. My house was not in the flood plain but it still flooded.
Woe to the homeowner who does not purchase flood insurance.
Every time it rains hard in Houston they flood. I have been here (North TX) since 2001 and have watched Houston flood about 5-8 times just from heavy rain storms no hurricane.
Lawyers who sue governmental entities are idiots. Particularly after the Corp of Engineers was completely exonerated after Katrina floods in Louisiana.
Generally I’d agree, but part of this suit looks like it has to do with the government (intentionally? that’s the question) “hiding” the information. I understand there’s no requirement to disclose this information , but if the government willfully tried to hide this information from prospective buyers, I could see homeowners possibly having a valid claim (but they probably won’t if it’s true there’s no disclosure requirement).
What motivation would it be to “hide” the information? People think they are bulletproof and would have bought there anyway no matter what warnings they heard.
Sorry, but most people in Houston know how often it floods and most reservoirs overflow. What happened to common sense? People are looking for someone to be responsible besides them.
Common Sense is something not apparent in our distracted society. Look at people still driving while texting. Yes, there is a law now and yes they are still doing it.
You would think that the big levee wall that your neighborhood is INSIDE of would give you a clue that you live INSIDE of a reservoir. It really isn’t that complicated, the Barker and Addicks dams are really large structures. Furthermore, a preferred risk policy is $450 a year for primary homes, maximum coverage. If you can’t afford that on your home, you shouldn’t be owning a home in the Houston area. Everyone knows it is a flood prone area.
Would you not think that the developer would tell the retailers and it is the obligation of the realtors to tell the home buyers if they are aware of the situation. The realtors could be in jeopardy also be in line for lawsuits.
The majority of people who have lived in Houston many years have two trains of thought:
1. My house has been in this location for X number of years, and I haven’t seen it flood, therefore, I do not require flood insurance.
2. I’ve seen and heard of homes flooding many times, therefore, I should probably have flood insurance just in case.
For people moving to Houston, which Houston has a greater influx population every year, the train of thought is typically passed through realtors, who’s only incentive is to sell the property to an unwitting individual. They tell foreigners and people from out-of-state that they are not in a flood plain. They skip around the idea of a home being in a flood prone area. I can personally attest that I have insured two people who were ready to buy a home, I informed them that they were in an area needed flood coverage, they backed out of purchasing the home once they were fully aware of the risks.
Why am I, as an insurance representative, having to save my customers from being cheated. The realtors should be there to assist their customers in purchasing a safe secure home, with additional information regarding each home location. Uncovering these details is as much the realtors responsibility as it is the government’s responsibility to ensure this information is easily accessible.
Aren’t the realtors lying when they describe the properties as not in a flood zone? How did you get the truth to the potential homebuyers – did they lose their deposit when they backed out?
The realtors just failed to mention the homes were located in an AE zone to the prospective buyers, and yes, both my clients lost the deposits they paid down. Indirectly lying by claiming ignorance.
Anything in an X zone, realtors will say the homes are not, “In a flood zone,” which is technically untrue, because if you are in Houston, you are in a flood zone! Zone X is just less risky than Zone AE, but still qualifies as a flood zone. Many of the homes that flooded during Harvey were in X zones, but buying a home in an AE zone is practically guaranteeing that you will flood on a regular basis hurricane or not.
The way I found out is because we always quote a flood policy when we quote a homeowners policy. My clients called us to determine the cost of home insurance, and when we ran the flood proposal on the address provided, we found the homes were in AE zones. We then informed them of the high-risk zone and the prospective cost to obtain an elevation certificate, and the potential cost of the policy itself. They were shocked that the realtor had not told them at the beginning, when they were looking at the home, that it could have these enormous costs.
The issue I face with this is that people are relying on realtors to know the in’s and out’s of home-buying to save them money, not cost them their future and additional expenses. Maybe you should trust your insurance agent, that will have a continuous relationship with you, more than your one-time-use realtor.
And then was at least one person in the insurance industry in texas who knew of the potential flooding risk and still claimed they were hoping it was solely a flooding event because they said flooding is not nearly as bad as damage caused by high winds/tornadoes.
This sounds familiar to me. It didn’t happen to be an “agent” in Texas, did it? :P
The same guy who thinks forecasters are wrong and biased and people should rely on the Farmer’s Almanac, and that the almost 100% of climate scientists believing in and confirming climate change she these kinds of effects are biased, lying, lefties. Seems like a good case if somebody paid him to advise on risk and was harmed.
My question is did their insurance agent offer them flood coverage? If not why not?
Addicks and Barker reservoirs are known flood plains. The National Flood Insurance Program maps would or should have bore this fact out to property owners.
I lived in Houston for 14 years. Meyerland/South Post Oak Road area to be exact as to my neighborhood. Willow Waterhole Bayou ran behind my house. It was normally dry or near dry. In 1983 after Hurricane Alicia we had a storm move through one night dumping over 8 inches in 6 hours. the bayou flooded. My home flooded. I purchased flood coverage as my home was too close for comfort to that bayou. My house was not in the flood plain but it still flooded.
Woe to the homeowner who does not purchase flood insurance.
Every time it rains hard in Houston they flood. I have been here (North TX) since 2001 and have watched Houston flood about 5-8 times just from heavy rain storms no hurricane.
Lawyers who sue governmental entities are idiots. Particularly after the Corp of Engineers was completely exonerated after Katrina floods in Louisiana.
Generally I’d agree, but part of this suit looks like it has to do with the government (intentionally? that’s the question) “hiding” the information. I understand there’s no requirement to disclose this information , but if the government willfully tried to hide this information from prospective buyers, I could see homeowners possibly having a valid claim (but they probably won’t if it’s true there’s no disclosure requirement).
What motivation would it be to “hide” the information? People think they are bulletproof and would have bought there anyway no matter what warnings they heard.
The motivation would be to sell these homes, so that the developers can make money.
Sorry, but most people in Houston know how often it floods and most reservoirs overflow. What happened to common sense? People are looking for someone to be responsible besides them.
Common Sense is something not apparent in our distracted society. Look at people still driving while texting. Yes, there is a law now and yes they are still doing it.
Huh? Are they from Mars?
You would think that the big levee wall that your neighborhood is INSIDE of would give you a clue that you live INSIDE of a reservoir. It really isn’t that complicated, the Barker and Addicks dams are really large structures. Furthermore, a preferred risk policy is $450 a year for primary homes, maximum coverage. If you can’t afford that on your home, you shouldn’t be owning a home in the Houston area. Everyone knows it is a flood prone area.
Would you not think that the developer would tell the retailers and it is the obligation of the realtors to tell the home buyers if they are aware of the situation. The realtors could be in jeopardy also be in line for lawsuits.
The majority of people who have lived in Houston many years have two trains of thought:
1. My house has been in this location for X number of years, and I haven’t seen it flood, therefore, I do not require flood insurance.
2. I’ve seen and heard of homes flooding many times, therefore, I should probably have flood insurance just in case.
For people moving to Houston, which Houston has a greater influx population every year, the train of thought is typically passed through realtors, who’s only incentive is to sell the property to an unwitting individual. They tell foreigners and people from out-of-state that they are not in a flood plain. They skip around the idea of a home being in a flood prone area. I can personally attest that I have insured two people who were ready to buy a home, I informed them that they were in an area needed flood coverage, they backed out of purchasing the home once they were fully aware of the risks.
Why am I, as an insurance representative, having to save my customers from being cheated. The realtors should be there to assist their customers in purchasing a safe secure home, with additional information regarding each home location. Uncovering these details is as much the realtors responsibility as it is the government’s responsibility to ensure this information is easily accessible.
Aren’t the realtors lying when they describe the properties as not in a flood zone? How did you get the truth to the potential homebuyers – did they lose their deposit when they backed out?
The realtors just failed to mention the homes were located in an AE zone to the prospective buyers, and yes, both my clients lost the deposits they paid down. Indirectly lying by claiming ignorance.
Anything in an X zone, realtors will say the homes are not, “In a flood zone,” which is technically untrue, because if you are in Houston, you are in a flood zone! Zone X is just less risky than Zone AE, but still qualifies as a flood zone. Many of the homes that flooded during Harvey were in X zones, but buying a home in an AE zone is practically guaranteeing that you will flood on a regular basis hurricane or not.
The way I found out is because we always quote a flood policy when we quote a homeowners policy. My clients called us to determine the cost of home insurance, and when we ran the flood proposal on the address provided, we found the homes were in AE zones. We then informed them of the high-risk zone and the prospective cost to obtain an elevation certificate, and the potential cost of the policy itself. They were shocked that the realtor had not told them at the beginning, when they were looking at the home, that it could have these enormous costs.
The issue I face with this is that people are relying on realtors to know the in’s and out’s of home-buying to save them money, not cost them their future and additional expenses. Maybe you should trust your insurance agent, that will have a continuous relationship with you, more than your one-time-use realtor.