Of Course "No Flood Coverage" Really Means "Flood Coverage"
---
Because the following are not enough:
--FEMA generally
--$2,000 debit cards (including the one used at a strip club)
--$250,000 credit limits on 250,000 bureaucrat credit cards
--President Bush's "New New Deal" for the "New New Orleans"
One state also wants to make sure insurance companies pay their unfair share too:
And remember, this is Mississippi, not New Orleans. I might -- might -- understand arguing that insurance companies should pay New Orleans property owners on the grounds that the levee failure was not an "act of god" flood but rather an "act of man" construction failure. Mississippi has no such argument.
Floods are floods, insurance policies are excruciatingly detailed and specific documents, and litigants are limited to reasonable interpretations of contracts. This is frivolous litigation -- and politics -- of the most despicable kind.
Finally, have hack politicians not learned the lessons of oppressive auto insurance laws? The point can come where the government literally forces insurance companies out of a state. Is that what Mississippi wants -- to make property insurance unavailable at any price under any terms?
That's a mighty high premium for a sound bite and a re-election bid.
--FEMA generally
--$2,000 debit cards (including the one used at a strip club)
--$250,000 credit limits on 250,000 bureaucrat credit cards
--President Bush's "New New Deal" for the "New New Orleans"
One state also wants to make sure insurance companies pay their unfair share too:
Mississippi on Thursday sued insurers to force them to pay billions of dollars in flood damage from Hurricane Katrina, saying standard insurance polices have led homeowners to believe they are covered for all hurricane damage, whether from high winds or storm surges.Remember the lengthy lawsuit about whether the World Trade Center attack was one or two "occurrences" for insurance purposes? Multiply that by a factor of -- who knows?
To deny coverage to those whose homes were wiped out by the storm surge, but lacked flood insurance, is "taking advantage of people in the most dire straits," said Attorney General Jim Hood, who filed the lawsuit against five major insurers.
...
He asked a Chancery Court to void provisions in the policies that attempt to exclude from coverage losses or damages directly or indirectly caused by water, whether wind-driven or not. He said he would seek a restraining order next week pending a full hearing.
And remember, this is Mississippi, not New Orleans. I might -- might -- understand arguing that insurance companies should pay New Orleans property owners on the grounds that the levee failure was not an "act of god" flood but rather an "act of man" construction failure. Mississippi has no such argument.
Floods are floods, insurance policies are excruciatingly detailed and specific documents, and litigants are limited to reasonable interpretations of contracts. This is frivolous litigation -- and politics -- of the most despicable kind.
Finally, have hack politicians not learned the lessons of oppressive auto insurance laws? The point can come where the government literally forces insurance companies out of a state. Is that what Mississippi wants -- to make property insurance unavailable at any price under any terms?
That's a mighty high premium for a sound bite and a re-election bid.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Floridians Demand "Disaster Welfare"
- Is Louisiana a "Victim" the Way Louisianans Are?
- Flood Insurance Program Bankrupted by Katrina
- Of Course "No Flood Coverage" Really Means "Flood Coverage"
- Why is Flood Insurance Publicly Provided?
Posted by KipEsquire on
16 September 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.



