General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI knew this was coming. . . Hurricane Harvey: 70% of home damage costs aren't covered by insurance
Apologies if it's already been posted. . .
http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/01/news/hurricane-harvey-cost-damage-homes-flood/index.html
Hurricane Harvey: 70% of home damage costs aren't covered by insurance
New preliminary data from CoreLogic, a property analytics firm, predicts that between $25 billion and $37 billion worth of flood loss has hit homes across southeast Texas and southwest Louisiana. Only about $6.5 billion to $9.5 billion of those costs will be covered by insurers.
The report doesn't come as a complete surprise. A very small percentage of homes in Harvey's path were covered by flood insurance from the beleaguered National Flood Insurance Program -- a federally-funded program that is virtually the only flood protection available to homeowners.
Standard homeowners insurance policies cover damage from the high winds that are associated with a hurricane, but they don't cover damage from rain or flood waters. In the case of Harvey, many of the damaged homes weren't in high risk flood zones.
For Harvey victims who will be forced to recover without assistance from insurance, it's a daunting challenge. Hundreds of people have turned to online crowdfunding in recent days to make pleas for assistance.
(more at the link)
Response to ET Awful (Original post)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)world wide wally
(21,719 posts)They won't pay for anything if there is any way out of it at all.
sarcasmo
(23,968 posts)MontanaMama
(23,242 posts)responsibility and that is making a profit for their shareholders. That's it.
spanone
(135,636 posts)FakeNoose
(32,356 posts)Climate's changing, perimeters aren't safe. Nothing is like it used to be.
MontanaMama
(23,242 posts)offering loans at outrageous interest rates. Good gawd. This is a travesty.
procon
(15,805 posts)This is a known flaw in the insurance industry, and it is self perpetuating, always putting profits over people. Most homeowners don't know that the so called flood insurance they thought covered them for flood damage, only applies to stuff like your sink overflowing or a pipe bursting, but not real, oh-my-god! rising waters.
That needs to change. With global warming creating dangerous risks in areas that were previously safe, home owners need insurance that is relevant to the times and current conditions with the events we're facing now.
JenniferJuniper
(4,496 posts)Flood insurance must be purchased separately. Many people don't understand this.
And most people living in non-flood zones have no idea how much at risk they may be. I know I didn't.
procon
(15,805 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)that they simply did not "choose" to buy insurance.
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Companies can delay payments,refuse to honor Payments. Limit liability quoted in Polices. Bottom line,in Texas,the new Law allows uninsurance . Just like required insurance only difference is,you get nothing for your Policy Payments.
State Farm and Farmers were a couple of the big movers behind this new scam.
jpak
(41,742 posts)yup
JenniferJuniper
(4,496 posts)in back to back "500 year" storms in 2010. Not in a flood zone, so we never purchased flood insurance.
All FEMA could/would do is offer us a loan to cover the damages - at an interest rate higher than we could get with a fixed rate home equity loan with the same pay back period.
We're fortunate we still had equity, fortunate that it was only part of the house. I feel horrible for the people who lost it all and have no where to turn.
MichMan
(11,790 posts)What about those that made the decision not to buy flood insurance because they didn't want the expense? Should they be made whole anyway?
The person quoted in the link below, Mr Moore, dropped his flood insurance when the cost went up from $200 a year to $300 a year. That's only $50/month
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/08/29/where-harvey-is-hitting-hardest-four-out-of-five-homeowners-lack-flood-insurance/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_harveyinsurance-222pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.dc9c1df6af42
JenniferJuniper
(4,496 posts)without a flood. He probably thought he didn't need it.
MichMan
(11,790 posts)Expensive decision
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)MichMan
(11,790 posts)"Moore, a forklift driver, used to buy flood insurance from the government when it cost $200 a year, but he says the premium rose above $300, so he stopped. His home had never flooded before Harvey until now."
It does say "above $300" so that makes it a little over $25/month. Even less justification for dropping it. $1 per day.................