Well alot of people who lost their homes to Katrina are now trying to sue the insurance companies to covor damages caused to their homes by flood or as they're trying to put it 'wind driven storm surge'. Question is do you think they should receive compensation for damages caused by 'storm surges'?

I suppose it depends on the details of the particular insurance company, and whether or not the plan they bought specifically covered floods.

Technically, the flooding of much of New Orleans is not in fact "wind-drive storm surge" but rather "wind-drive storm surge that weakened levees that broke and caused floods." I think the insurance companies could legally get away with not covering some of that damage.

But from an ethical practice, I think it's pretty sleazy for insurance companies NOT to cover damages from the event, and trying to get out of it on a legal technicality.

If they have flood insurance, most of the damage should be covered by that.

I think it's more sleazy on the part of the insurance holders. If you live in an area below sea level, next to the ocean and you get home insurance without flood coverage I'm not gonna feel sympathetic towards you.

All home owners insurance polices clearly state that homes under only home owners insurance are covered from all natural disasters (EXCEPT FLOOD) I personally think that they should have reviewed this closer and bought flood insurance like my family did and I also think that none of these cases will stand up in court for too long because of the way the contracts are set up if you all give me a little while I'll scan one in for ya to read..

I agree wholly.

No see thats where you are wrong man they tell you straight up they don't hide it they let you know that they do not cover flood...

Some of those insurance practices are questionable. You even have to pay attention to what they aren't saying as well as what they do.

Do they still put the language in insurance policy in regards to "acts of God"? Think they used to have exclusions like that. And if you buy full-coverage insurance for a vehicle, wouldn't it seem to most folks that it would cover flood damage?

I reckon home owner's insurance could exclude a lot of damages; like damage from tornados, hail, earthquakes and acts of terrorism. They probably tend to cover fire and theft because you can get warning systems for helping to prevent complete loss or maybe have some recovery of stolen items.

Yet it's possible they could squeeze out practically anything in their fine print or ambiguious language.



Regardless, there is still some "buyer beware"-type mentality, since it's impossible to protect consumers from everything conceivable. I mean, who wouldn't think that they'd get burned from an order of hot coffee from McDonalds. They try to state that "unreasonable or unrealistic claims" by sellers or providers should be enough to worry the sensible folk.

One time, this lady claimed she was going to sue the ISP I used to work for, because the ad in the local yellow pages claimed "No busy signals" for a dialup account. Anyone familiar with how dialup works knows that's unrealistic.

My ISP told me "yes" when I asked if my DSL came with a fixed (static) IP address. I certainly didn't think the latter was unreasonable or unrealistic, yet I have no recourse, except to write to the Better Business Bureau about how I was wronged by being told an incorrect or deceitful response.



Insurance companies try to hold onto their cash. They'll delay claims or require additional information or even outright deny them at first. It's kind of like in Customer Service in some companies. You just hope you get the right representative the first time. Let's be honest, we won't always find knowledgeable and capable people on the other end. With claims adjusters, I'm sure it's not that much different.

Just on this point, specifically. Apparently this case involved a lady getting third degree burns from the spilled coffee, and was not the first time McDonald's had received complaints that the coffee was too hot.

You're so arguementative. And you bait me on purpose. :)

Lessee... once drove to college from McDonalds with coffee cup between my legs... had to brake the car really fast... coffee spilled on my thighs... burned like &%*$ and might have even qualified as third-degree when looking at the reddened flesh minutes later.

Yet... coffee is often cooked to boiling temperatures or thereabouts. I like it as fresh as possible and prefer it boiling hot... meaning it will stay hot a bit longer. It was silly of me to put the cup between my legs knowing that it would burn if spilled and possibly be the cause of an automotive accident. Smart people do silly things. Silly people do smart things. Suing a company for providing the freshest, still piping-hot coffee to a customer that didn't request "ice" or "cold coffee" was a silly person doing a silly thing and getting away with a million-plus reward for pursuing it in a court of law.

When they put the warnings on the ice-cream packages that your tongue could possibly stick to the treat, ultimately leaving behind a layer of tissue if removed rapidly.. makes sense. The Surgeon General's warning on tobacco about the risk of cancers and problems with pregnancies makes sense. Forcing a company to put "Warning: Hot Coffee" on a foam cup used to fulfill a customer's request for the same is down right lunacy. When you get EXACTLY what you order when you order it, you shouldn't be able to sue or hold someone responsible for your own stupidity. The person that spilled coffee on themselves while driving and I were equally stupid, since we've probably been through that before and felt we could avoid it from happening again, while we do the exact same things that will lead up to that eventual result.

Insurance, on the other hand, isn't about protecting people from making erroneous judgement calls about buying real-estate that is below sea-level and protected by levees that have been in place for generations. It's about them agreeing to take a person's money through premiums and then using those arguements about reasons as why NOT to pay.

When I lived in DeSoto, Texas; there were a couple of years where hailstorms were causing excessive damage to the roofing of homes and even some businesses. The first year, the influx of roofers was unbelieveable. The second year, it was reduced, though claims were that the damage was the same or worse from the year before. There were some owners that were completely unable to get coverage for hail damage, simply because insurance companies lost money on paying off those claims. Sure, no one expected that unusual kind of weather to occur two years in a row, causing millions in damages. Yet refusing to cover or offer coverage of a long-time customer is proof that there is no return loyalty, sometimes even on their original agreements. I'm sure everyone here realizes that insurance premiums took a substantial increase.

With Hurricane Katrina, there are going to be some real woes in getting insurance companies to pay claims, simply because it will empty their coffers to such a level as being unable to pay off on claims that they could reasonably expect. The last thing they need to do is pay off on ignorant claims by people that think they should try to seek payoffs on those 5 high-definition T.V.'s that they looted. Greed on a personal level and greed on the corporate level means a lot of government assistance is going to be needed for some of those that really need and deserve the help. SO in the long run, we all pay... one way or another.

If they have flood insurance, insurance that is only covered by the federal gov't and is only handed out in certain places, then yes, they should get coverage from the storm surges. However, if the insurance company can assertain that the damage came from winds or the like, and they have normal insurance, then they should still get coverage.

Yes, it is the "right" thing to do, to give them coverage, but really, it is on the homeowners to worry about insurance. Although I have to disagree with Kevin where he says he has no sympathy for them if they didn't have insurance. They had the illusion of protection given to them by the levees. While in hindsight from thousands of miles away it is easy to say "no sympathy", I can't honestly do that myself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_...trina_insurance

That's a bit excessive.