Joe has been hanging out on the causeway to Honeymoon Island. LOL

On a related note for your area. Wait until Tampa Bay finally gets hit by the big one. Oldsmar and many other areas will disappear under storm surge.

Meg & Joe

Meg, it is the state and local goverments that want these mansions, hi-rises and other items built on these islands. It means very large tax money for them on very little land. Since they do not have to cover any issues relating to storm damage to these buildings, little do they care.

Joe, I agree that FEMA or the US goverment has no business insuring these properties. Let the states, counties and municipalities insure them. Very doubtful any of these buildings would be built is local's had to cover them...

Wes,
At one time I lived on Boca Ciega Bay....beautiful unti the March 13th, 1993 no name storm.......

We now live in Clearwater, on a hill and our elevation is 37' 4" above sea level.......like I said, Momma drowned the stupid ones.......oh, and we were at 8' above sea level at the Boca Ciega house.....

If the tax payers had a voice I am sure most would abolish the present day NFIP program. MOST of the flood claims paid last year and the year before was to buildings that were flooded before, some flooded several times.  This is insane for the Fed's to insure buildings that flood over and over and over.

I think flood insurance on sea coast land should cost as much a yacht policy without long enough mooring lines. Something like 5% of the value per year. . Let the rich owners pay the premium not the poor working slobs, like us.

I agree with Ray and Joe. It is ridiculous for NFIP to continually cover properties that flood over and over. It is the general public's tax that ends up paying for the bulk of these losses, primarily because NFIP does not have a premium base high enough for these flood prone areas. Beach property should have very high premium bases. Why should we have to pay for their wanting to live on the water.

Have you heard the story about the "adjusters flood house".  The house was on the banks of Caney Creek in South Montgomery County, TX. yep just outside New Caney on the East side. All the old flood adjusters know this area.

He worked the first flood claim on the house when NFIP started writing flood insurance.  He drove by a year later and  the house all grown up with weeds and vacant.  He pulled his old file found the owner and purchased the house as is for $20,000. He spent about 2 week ends cutting out rot mold etc and about 5 large pails of latex. He would find a local tenant for $800. per month and collect about 10-15 thousand ever other year until 1994 when the creek water was over the ridge and he had to disclose the damage was over 50% of the value and no longer eligable for flood insurance. He collected a total loss of $60,000 and sold the lot for $7,000.

Now this is better than the school that cost $199.00 on how to make money on real estate. All you people who use this method please send me my $199.00

PS. Some problems arise on rebuilding  as the job built cabinets and hollow core doors will not be held togather by latex paint more than five times. And you have to start over again.

Read this morning that SF has agreed to "review" 35,000 Mississippi claims. The question I have this morning, who is SF going to get to "review" these claims??????
Who in the world would want to get into the middle of this bunch of lies.


David Houtz

I have heard that these claims will be reviewed by SF employees only.  When I first heard that they were doing this, I thought for a second it might mean potential work for some lucky independents.  Then I quickly had the same thought as you...who would wanna get in the middle of this mess?!

Scruggs Katrina group sued over attorney fees by a partner in the group(per article):

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/27/ap3556661.html

Here is an article on what SF and Travelers recently filed in New Orleans to try and exclude policyholders that took out SBA loans from going forward with lawsuits against the carriers. An interesting move which is a matter of law that the courts will have to decide. I'm still trying to figure out whether the decision makers on this move are incredibly smart or incredibly stupid, but one thing is for sure, this may turn out to be the biggest PR fiasco they have ever pulled.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1175060682126840.xml&coll=1

Les,
Like I said,we now live at 37'4" above sea level, on a hill........

I don't blame you Joe. I lived in St. Pete in the 60's. Quite a bit of change since then. Mostly due to the availability of flood and wind insurance. Without it there would be far less coastal development.

Here is the latest from the good senator from MS that was in the IJ today. Sometimes I wonder if Lott has a clue. Here is just one quote from the article:

"That's why I believe every insurer should include a plain-English description of a homeowner's policy, prominently displayed on the policy's first page."

Lott's bill will require this basic description be contained in a "noncoverage disclosure" box stating in bold font, twice the size of the body of the policy's text, all conditions, exclusions and other limitations pertaining to the individual policy's coverage."

Has this man ever read an insurance policy??? To put what he wants to put in a "box" on the front page in bold font, twice the size of the body of the policy text.... would be one interesting size "box" and to say the least one large first page.......

The link below is the full article and there are some rather humerous comments at the end of it.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2007/04/02/78328.htm

I am insured with Nationwide insurance and have been for many years. On the first page or the cover of my policy there is a big red stamp which states this is not a flood policy. I am not sure how more simple it can be to make me aware that I have no flood coverage. I have purchased a seperate flood policy, I am not in a flood zone and my home is on a slab about 8 feet above the street level. When I see the stamp on my policy's front cover, I inquired about purchasing a flood policy. While working claims in Houston in 2001 after Allison, many policy holders would have their policy out on the table and it was clear to me that their policy also had a red stamp on the cover stating it was not a flood policy. I was handling claims for many different carriers in 2001 which make me believe this could be a solution.

And we wonder why our society is in such a mess, very much including our tax laws. Lott has lost it and needs to retire.

I sent an email to Lott's office about a month ago after I read some of his comments that lumped all carriers together as bad apples. I lumped all United States Senators together as a group and asked if he though it was a fair practice to do so. Did he like being lumped together with say, Sen. Clinton’s positions? I never did get a response. I reminded him that many folks (adjusters) spent time in not too comfortable surroundings (sleeping in our cars) for a period of many months attempting to help the fine folks of Mississippi and Louisiana. I think that he is taking this thing personally. I thought it is standard to issue a plain language insurance policy already?

Chris,

You are making a case that Mr. Lott knows what xxxxx Lumped stands for. He has been riding his high horse for many many years. So out of touch!!!!!!

David Houtz

Gale, pull out that homeowners policy you bought 38 years ago and compare it to the one you bought this year and share with all of us the differences that you see between them. Is the current one any easier to read? Does it make what is covered and what is not covered more definable? I do have a solution that would make the consumer (average) more aware of what is covered when they buy a policy. Fire, lightning and explosion. Just like the good old days when that was all you could get insurance coverage for. Rven that was complicated, as define fire for us? Everytime I opened up the door of the wood stove we used to heat the old farmhouse, some smoke came out of the stove, and after a couple years I've got smoke damage to some of my most prized possessions and that smoke damage was caused by fire. Damn policy says fire is covered so that insurance carrier needs to pay up. Believe it or not, the policies you read today are considered "plain language policies" compared to the days of old. I don't know of one state that doesn't have insurance regulatory departments that have to approve the language of insurance policies before they are written. When you bought your last new car or truck, did the dealer sit down and tell you EVERTYHING that is not covered by the warranty on that vehicle, or did they give you a manual to read? Or was it all spelled out on page one of the contract in a box stating everything that would not be covered under that warranty in bold letters twice the size of what was in the owners manual? That can be applied to many facets in life we deal with, such as banking, credit, etc as other have mentioned.
One other issue that Mr Lott has thrown out for the media to exploit and most people would not realize the significance of this, and that is the statement he has made along the line that he has not been contacted on his homeowners claim by his carrier since the fall of 2005. Does anyone in our group of readers get any feelings about this statement? To your average reader it looks like the big bad insurance carrier ignoring the average insured on their claim. The 1st thing I thought about when I read that was that Mr Lott had hired ole Dickie early in the game to represent him, and therefore the carrier was barred ethically from further contact with the policyholder. Next time he states his carrier hasn't contacted him since fall of 2005, he needs to end the comment with the date he became represented by counsel. I'd bet the two dates and close together. Well enough for my soapbox here. Can you tell I deal with attorneys and katrina claims all day long?????