Judge rules Flood Damage not covered by Insurer in Katrina

[Rieyeuxs]

The question is how ANYONE looking at a slab is expected to determine what % wind vs what % water did what. It doesn't even need to be a slab. Any water damage produces mold and mildew; a major reason why most houses are condemned. If your house is/was flooded by whatever reason, how can you assess wind impact? Unless a clear guideline is in place (which it isn't), how will the courts now stop a flood (pardon the pun) of lawsuits assessing wind damage in a flood/surge plain?

For future reference, don't all financed coastal/100yr floodplain buildings now require flood insurance?

[Lindaloo]

What we are working toward is to limit homeowners’ insurance coverage in high risk areas such as barrier islands and storm surge areas. As a result of Katrina’s storm surge, 92% of Pascagoula, MS was flooded. Therefore it is now and it has always been a very high risk area for flood and wind damage.

Risk assessment has been sorely lacking in homeowners’ insurance policies as demonstrated by the recent storms. Auto insurance companies regularly raise premiums if you have a poor driving record, drive a sports car, live in a high crime area or commute in a high accident area. Auto insurance companies often refuse to write policies to high risk customers.

Life insurance companies raise their rates and reduce benefits based upon age and health factors. Health insurance companies often exclude preexisting conditions from policy coverage. It’s just unreasonable to expect a health insurance company to pay for a liver transplant in an alcoholic.

Let’s not socialize homeowners’ insurance as the federal government has done with flood insurance. Everyone is entitled to flood insurance as long as they pay the premium. Frankly, flood insurance does nothing but encourage people to build houses in high risk areas. The National Flood Insurance Program needs to be abolished.

Companies that write homeowners’ insurance need to remain private (unlike Citizens in Florida). They need to be able to discriminate on the basis of risk. Amortizing risk is the fundamental definition of insurance.

Tell that to FEMA Alladin! They drew up the maps. No one here is saying that they want to be paid for something they had no coverage on. Stop typing and read, then type. Comprehend=KEY WORD!

[Lindaloo]

The question is how ANYONE looking at a slab is expected to determine what % wind vs what % water did what. It doesn't even need to be a slab. Any water damage produces mold and mildew; a major reason why most houses are condemned. If your house is/was flooded by whatever reason, how can you assess wind impact? Unless a clear guideline is in place (which it isn't), how will the courts now stop a flood (pardon the pun) of lawsuits assessing wind damage in a flood/surge plain?

For future reference, don't all financed coastal/100yr floodplain buildings now require flood insurance?

Once again, another one. We were not required to obtain flood insurance. That is why there need to be guidelines. And another thing, when you are reduced to a slab and you have flood, the flood and homeowner's polict are supposed to top each other out. Well, flood tops out but the insurance company runs, resulting in a lawsuit... imagine that! It is bull and all of you that are bashing need to get a clue as to what this is really about.

Mold and mildew on a slab? Are you serious? I guess those people have to go find a piece of lumber or something (if they can find it) to show mold. Um okay, good thinking there!

[wayoutfront]

The question is how ANYONE looking at a slab is expected to determine what % wind vs what % water did what. It doesn't even need to be a slab. Any water damage produces mold and mildew; a major reason why most houses are condemned. If your house is/was flooded by whatever reason, how can you assess wind impact? Unless a clear guideline is in place (which it isn't), how will the courts now stop a flood (pardon the pun) of lawsuits assessing wind damage in a flood/surge plain?

For future reference, don't all financed coastal/100yr floodplain buildings now require flood insurance?

The place to make a difference is to make sure the Lawyers filing these suits have to pay the court cost of the winning side if they lose.


Anything that is not crystal clear requires an engineer to determine the cause of loss.

Of course common sense reigns supreme, such as the Leonard case. Mr leonard seemed pleased with his settlement from court

his original 1600.00 plus the 1200 additional = 2800 That in itself implies minimal wind damage as that is only about 20 or less squares of shingles

[Lindaloo]

Oh and Alladin, FEMA has revised the flood maps. Guess what, I am still not listed in a flood zone. I have had flood insurance for a long time.


I assure you that 92% of Pascagoula was not flooded.

[stormcrow]

Where in the policy does it say they top each other out, or is this another scheme of the king of torts

[Alladin]

The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM’s) put out by FEMA are a big part of the problem. You’re correct in that many areas are not within the storm surge area according to the FIRM’s. Yet we know from practical experience that many places flooded that the FIRM’s indicated would not flood. The FIRM’s provide rough guidelines and they change more rapidly than they can be updated. Being listed in a flood zone is an administrative concern for insurance companies. No one should feel safe because they are not in a flood zone.

The bottom line is you can’t defend against flood water. You can’t elevate your property to avoid storm surge. Look at the number of oil platforms in the Gulf that were damaged by Katrina. Water is far too powerful a force. Diverting water is an expensive solution and is fraught with dangers.

Therefore you must make sure your house is never going to be in the path of flood water or storm surge. If your house flooded once, it will flood again. It’s just a matter of time. You just have to be judicious in the location you choose to build your house and avoid high risk areas. There are many high risk areas not designated as flood areas.

We should not expect the government to bail us out from floods (pun intended).

[wayoutfront]

I live on the Florida Gulf coast. I have lived in coastal Florida for over 30 years. During that time, I have always made sure that my houses have been well away from any flood area. I do not have flood insurance. After Ivan my house suffered minor wind damage. Today I looked at my annual homeowners’ insurance premium from 2003 and it was $253.00. Now that same coverage costs me $1,823.00 and next year it will cost me $2,789.00. Why?

I don’t blame the insurance companies. I blame the people that build their houses too close to the water and then sue their insurance companies for damages when they get flooded. It’s these people that have driven up my insurance costs. For example, in my area we have people that have built their houses on barrier islands and insurance companies write policies for them. I remember seeing a house after Ivan that had clearly suffered extensive damage from the storm surge. The owner had spray painted a message on his garage door, “Where are you State Farm?”

Obviously this homeowner expected State Farm to take care of him and his house. This homeowner did not have flood insurance (he owned the house outright). He found out that his insured losses were minimal. Damn if he didn’t hire an attorney and sue State Farm. State Farm will have to pay a lot of money to defend the case until a judge finally tells this homeowner that State Farm is not liable for storm surge damage. In the meantime, my insurance costs go up.

Also, the State of Florida created Citizens Insurance several years ago. It’s the homeowners’ insurance company of last resort in Florida. When private companies won’t insure your property then Citizens insures you. Through an unfortunate administrative oversight, Citizens did not charge high enough premiums to cover the losses they incurred as a result of the hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. Guess who gets to bail them out? All residents of Florida that have homeowners’ insurance with private companies now pay an extra premium amount to bail out Citizens Insurance.

The real kicker is that people who suffered losses due to storm surge are rebuilding their houses in the exact same locations! They don’t learn from their mistakes and as a result I end up suffering for it with higher insurance premiums. Everyone that pays for homeowners’ insurance in the state of Florida is paying for their mistakes too.

That's BS.... I'm spending 40,000 just to get my house above the Katrina surge.... and practically everyone I know that is rebuilding is doing something similar.... we might be building back in the same locations because that is where WE WANT TO LIVE.... but at least most everyone is trying to get their houses elevated as best they can afford... and that 40K will put my house above the Katrina surge... which I hope to heck I never have to experience again... their is the potential for disasters to occur all across the US... it just doesn't ONLY happen in the coastal areas...

Guess you aren't aware of NFIP Increased cost of compliance coverage OR you didn't have flood coverage OR yu are spending more than the 30 grand available through the flood policy to meet the flood hazard plan for your area

Any way for the thousands that are getting the 30 grand

Your welcome
from The taxpayer
http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/icc.shtm

Frank I was just informed from Lindaloo via IM that I have offended you with this post. After viewing your proximity to the water I believe you probaly had a flood policy Hopefully my post with the link attached points you in the right direction to get what you may have paid for

and to the others ICC (Increaed cost of compliance ) is paid for by the taxpayers.

[Frank P]

I live on the Florida Gulf coast. I have lived in coastal Florida for over 30 years. During that time, I have always made sure that my houses have been well away from any flood area. I do not have flood insurance. After Ivan my house suffered minor wind damage. Today I looked at my annual homeowners’ insurance premium from 2003 and it was $253.00. Now that same coverage costs me $1,823.00 and next year it will cost me $2,789.00. Why?

I don’t blame the insurance companies. I blame the people that build their houses too close to the water and then sue their insurance companies for damages when they get flooded. It’s these people that have driven up my insurance costs. For example, in my area we have people that have built their houses on barrier islands and insurance companies write policies for them. I remember seeing a house after Ivan that had clearly suffered extensive damage from the storm surge. The owner had spray painted a message on his garage door, “Where are you State Farm?”

Obviously this homeowner expected State Farm to take care of him and his house. This homeowner did not have flood insurance (he owned the house outright). He found out that his insured losses were minimal. Damn if he didn’t hire an attorney and sue State Farm. State Farm will have to pay a lot of money to defend the case until a judge finally tells this homeowner that State Farm is not liable for storm surge damage. In the meantime, my insurance costs go up.

Also, the State of Florida created Citizens Insurance several years ago. It’s the homeowners’ insurance company of last resort in Florida. When private companies won’t insure your property then Citizens insures you. Through an unfortunate administrative oversight, Citizens did not charge high enough premiums to cover the losses they incurred as a result of the hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. Guess who gets to bail them out? All residents of Florida that have homeowners’ insurance with private companies now pay an extra premium amount to bail out Citizens Insurance.

The real kicker is that people who suffered losses due to storm surge are rebuilding their houses in the exact same locations! They don’t learn from their mistakes and as a result I end up suffering for it with higher insurance premiums. Everyone that pays for homeowners’ insurance in the state of Florida is paying for their mistakes too.

That's BS.... I'm spending 40,000 just to get my house above the Katrina surge.... and practically everyone I know that is rebuilding is doing something similar.... we might be building back in the same locations because that is where WE WANT TO LIVE.... but at least most everyone is trying to get their houses elevated as best they can afford... and that 40K will put my house above the Katrina surge... which I hope to heck I never have to experience again... their is the potential for disasters to occur all across the US... it just doesn't ONLY happen in the coastal areas...

Guess you aren't aware of NFIP Increased cost of compliance coverage OR you didn't have flood coverage OR yu are spending more than the 30 grand available through the flood policy to meet the flood hazard plan for your area

Any way for the thousands that are getting the 30 grand

Your welcome
from The taxpayer
http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip/icc.shtm

Frank I was just informed from Lindaloo via IM that I have offended you with this post. After viewing your proximity to the water I believe you probaly had a flood policy Hopefully my post with the link attached points you in the right direction to get what you may have paid for

and to the others ICC (Increaed cost of compliance ) is paid for by the taxpayers.

wayout, as stated earlier in my post at 8:25 I do not qualify for ICC because I was not in a flood zone (even though I had flood insurance you CAN'T get ICC money if you were outside the flood zone (A)... the NFIP does NOT provide ICC money to anyone outside of the flood zone... which is zone A.... I am in zone C..... so I don't qualify.... I've spend HOURS on the phone with FEMA, NFIP and State Farm. pleading my case to no avail ... bottom line I don't qualify for ICC.. period... not per the NFIP regulations.... not from FEMA.... regardless I still went up 10 feet... my house is now 28 feet above sea level.... which for the city of Biloxi is quite high... Katrina's surge WOULD NOT have reached my house.... from what I can tell from the neighborhood 's damage, my new elevated house would have receive only minor wind damage from Katrina.... but no surge damage except perhaps to some stairs on the ground level...

[wayoutfront]

Sorry I missed that post

I agree its unfortunate that your community didn't adopt the flood plan. Time to elect new officials locally.

Its refreshing hearing a victim who understands who to blame and comitted to mitigating against future similar circumstances. Hopefuly your proprty values wil reflect your additional efforts

[Frank P]

Sorry I missed that post

I agree its unfortunate that your community didn't adopt the flood plan. Time to elect new officials locally.

Its refreshing hearing a victim who understands who to blame and comitted to mitigating against future similar circumstances. Hopefuly your proprty values wil reflect your additional efforts

thank you.... now you get it from my perspective .... and the resell value for building up was probably played just as important factor as the peace of mind of going above the flood levels.....

[Ixolib]

Wow... Lots of of heated but interesting discussion here. And throughout, I see the word "flood" all over the place.

I for one do not believe my home was "flooded" in Katrina. On the contrary, I am a firm believer that it was "surged" by wind-driven water. Therefore, my damages should have been covered. If not for the wind, the water would not have presented itself.

[timNms]

Wow... Lots of of heated but interesting discussion here. And throughout, I see the word "flood" all over the place.

I for one do not believe my home was "flooded" in Katrina. On the contrary, I am a firm believer that it was "surged" by wind-driven water. Therefore, my damages should have been covered. If not for the wind, the water would not have presented itself.

Ixolib, what is the insurance companies' definition of surge????

Dictionary.com defines it this way: A coastal rise in water level caused by wind. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/surge

That would be sort of like my shingles blowing off and "wind driven" rain coming into my bedroom, right?
[/b]

[stormcrow]

Ixolib; your theory would invalidate a major part of the reason for the creation of NFIP. You can belive what you want and it woun't change fact. Your is one of many sad stories, but you are subject to a contract.

[Ixolib]

Ixolib; your theory would invalidate a major part of the reason for the creation of NFIP. You can belive what you want and it woun't change fact. Your is one of many sad stories, but you are subject to a contract.

As for the origin of the NFIP, consider this:

When Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in 1968, it acted in response to spiraling flood disaster costs brought about by increased construction in flood hazard areas.

No doubt, Katrina's surge had nothing to do with "construction" or with "flood hazard areas". I was not in a "flood area", but the water driven by Katrina's surely entered my home to a depth of three feet on my property that is already at 20 feet above MSL.

And if we're gonna bring NFIP into the issue, then we also have to debate the term "floodplain". In my viewpoint, a "floodplain" is much more associated with the overflow of streams and rivers than it is with coastal areas that are "overrun" by wind-driven storm surge. In defining the word "floodplain" one can conclude that its original concept dealt with flooding caused by rainfall and runoff into streams and rivers, causing them to overflow their banks.

The supposed banks of the GOM or Biloxi Bay did not "overflow" as there are no "banks". It is simply a shoreline that was overrun with wind-driven water, i.e., surge to a height of ~30+/- feet. Had nothing at all to do with rainfall causing a "flood" in a pre-defined floodplain...

[Lindaloo]

Excellent points Ixolib. I happen to agree with your thinking on that.

I had always thought that the NFIP was started after Camille. Camille hit in 1969. I never heard of any problems about the insurance companies paying out for flood damage back then.

I know that after Camille, people had to buy flood through NFIP.

[stormcrow]

I am sorry for your losses, and I do understand the scope of them. But, simily you are wrong about NFIP and the courts have and will continue to tell you so. If the tortmeisters manage to find some silly judge in a rural settling who tries to change the legislation, it will be reversed on appeal.

[Lindaloo]

Nice way to put that stormcrow.

I would like to see federal regulations on the insurance industry. Right now, the state insurance commissioner regulates the industry. That would stop all the silly companies from making profits from tragedies. They are way out of control and the way they figure premiums is absolutely ridiculous. If no one can predict a earthquake, tornado, or hurricane then why should they be able to raise premuims based on risk? They are trying to play God, but with our money.


To all of you though, even if you are not listed as a "flood zone" you should get flood insurance. It is not that expensive. I pay about 235 a year. You should also look into getting an umbrella policy for building expense.

[gtalum]

I would like to see federal regulations on the insurance industry.

More regulation always ends up with less supply and/or higher prices. Something to keep in mind.

[stormcrow]

I agree that strong Federal regs would prevent confusion. 50 states 50 ways of doing things and a company like Allstate sets up 50 companies (1 for each state) to avoid interstate commerce regulations.