If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   You know the picture of the destroyed Staten Island home that Allstate uses in the ad patting themselves on the back for how awesome and helpful they are? Yeah, Allstate's stiffing the couple that owns it and refusing to pay off their policy   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 171
    More: Followup, Allstate, Staten Island, Sheila Traina, Staten Island Advance, flood insurance, New Dorp Beach  
•       •       •

11688 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 11:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-09 01:19:54 PM

Elegy: Yawn. Insurance companies become the enemy from the second you file the claim. Their profitability is founded on keeping premiums high and payouts low, after all.


Well.... I love Geico. Two accidents filed with them, both the other guy's fault. On the first one, the other insurance company (yes, it was Farmers) gave everyone, including Geico, the runaround. Geico rep say "Hrmph!" and had Geico promptly pay me for the repairs, then took Farmers to court (and won, including damages and court costs). Second one they simply expedited all around, kept everyone in the loop, and the other insurance paid. This was about 5 and 2 years ago. Did my rates go up? Nope, they went DOWN. $28/month for decent coverage. Finally, their automated phone system is a farking dream to deal with. And you can get insurance card copies/policy copies in about 5 minutes via email,
 
2013-01-09 01:19:57 PM

Belias: However, if the roof had been there when the swell came through, the water would have been stopped? Again, this isn't a slow flood due to heavy rain, this is ocean swell.



Also, once the roof has been removed, wind-driven rain will begin to fill the interior. This can compromise/destroy the electrical system in the home, cause the ceilings to collapse in minutes, and result in apparent (though covered) flooding inside the home.
 
2013-01-09 01:20:44 PM

Nothing To See Here: Well, it looks like getting the "Good Hands", they just got the finger.


Someone needs to Photoshop a middle finger into the Allstate Logo that is on the netting behind NFL field goals.
 
2013-01-09 01:24:02 PM

Belias: Point taken, it need not have reached the roof but must have significantly overtaken the walls. In any case, the max water line should be evident.However, if the roof had been there when the swell came through, the water would have been stopped? Again, this isn't a slow flood due to heavy rain, this is ocean swell.


Losing your roof substantially weakens your house. And if the surge knocked down the walls, the high-water line wouldn't mean much. Doesn't take much water to reach the top of your wall if it's lying flat on the ground.

poot_rootbeer: And which of these is more plausible? Lemme grab some chicken wire and a couple cinder blocks and figure it out.


Depends... how high was the surge there?

My comment wasn't meant so much to dismiss Allstate's version and side with the homeowner as to... dismiss Belias's dismissal of the homeowner's version. :-) Neither explanation to me sounds like it's particularly likelier than the other on its face.
 
2013-01-09 01:25:31 PM

evaned: And if the surge knocked down the walls,


And really what I should have said was "if the surge or wind knocked down the walls"
 
2013-01-09 01:26:08 PM

IamAwake: So yeah, depends on the area, the office, etc. They may be national, but they are silos.


If that guy was really slick he would have gotten some policies from you for your house and cars on the same trip. :)
 
2013-01-09 01:28:28 PM
This is a common mistake many homeowners make. The way the insurance business operates, the real genius behind it, is like so: The coverage is complete and total right up until the moment you file a claim. Once you do that, of course, the coverage runs out. So these people, had they not filed a claim, would be completely covered against their loss. But they did and, well, now it's time for them to pay higher premiums. A bitter lesson, I'm sure, but one from which they shall, no doubt, emerge the better because of it. Unlike their house.

It may sound heartless to someone who doesn't hold preferred shares, but the insurance company must follow such a business model to protect itself against the rampant fraud that accompanies these events. For all anyone knows, this couple, under cover of Sandy, a conveniently-timed sprinkle, may have generated a 120-mph wind to blow their roof off so they could pour 2.5 million gallons of "rain" into their home (just in time for the holidays, too! Looking very suspicious, isn't it?) in order to collect a nice fat settlement check. Little do they care that they may be depriving some poor stockholder of that skiing weekend in Gstaad.

And the ashtray in the Maserati is full, so I have to go to Italy to shop for a new one of those. Trouble every day.
 
2013-01-09 01:28:50 PM

Nothing To See Here: Well, it looks like getting the "Good Hands", they just got the finger.


Oh, no no. They got the hands all right. They're currently somewhere around the large intestines.
 
2013-01-09 01:30:26 PM

Rent Party: durbnpoisn: stiletto_the_wise: LOL Insurance is a scam. And water is wet.


This. But it's also illegal to own anthing important (like a car or a house) without it.


No it's not. I own vehicles with no insurance on them. If I want to drive them on the road, I need to insure them.

My house is insured not because the government makes me, but because the bank (the actual owners of the property) make me. If you own your home outright, you can cancel your insurance any time you like.


That sounds terribly unpatriotic. What you are REALLY saying is that you feel that your home is safe from any kind of damage or injury and that you don't need property insurance. What that means, of course, is that other people, who DO need property insurance, are paying higher premiums because of your selfish desire to not contribute to the pool of premiums. Hmmm... sounds like the Federal government needs to pass a comprehensive property insurance act and REQUIRE that you, and everyone else, buy insurance from mandated insurance exchanges. The government could pick big, successful and responsible insurance companies, like AIG, Farmers, Allstate, and so forth to help administer the plan. Hmmm... let's see, also, this could be enforced by the IRS. If you can't prove you have property insurance you get fined by them. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Next up: yacht insurance, where you gotta buy it even if you don't own a yacht.
 
2013-01-09 01:32:08 PM

Kibbler: So let's see...hmmm...major insurance company...and they advertise all the time on national TV...so they spend vast amounts of money on national TV advertising...and yet they don't seem to care about their customers...hmmm...

What conclusions can we draw?


That their business model is so profitable they can buy enough lobby power so they can legally fark their customers.
 
2013-01-09 01:35:20 PM

durbnpoisn: But it's also illegal to own anthing important (like a car or a house) without it


No it's not
 
2013-01-09 01:37:30 PM

fustanella: I am unsurprised. After Allstate pulled home insurance from Florida (after fifteen years of no claims, enjoy my money), we attempted to cancel our auto insurance with them. It took three months, and calls to corporate and (for lulz) the BBB, for them to refund our prepaid premium balance. They continue to send us various ads and privacy-policy notices and such, years later. I suspect it's a fark-you response from them, since they don't seem interested in stopping them.


I like this. People always think companies are out to get them.

First, if you were insured and paid premiums, that means that company was liable while you were insured. If you or the company ends the contract that doesn't mean you get your money back.

Second, my guess is your name and address are on a list for ads/correspondence. It's probable just sitting on a spread sheet in a system and is sent out automatically. There's no fark you involved, someone was just too lazy to take your name off. Besides, it's costing them money to send you the correspondence. Maybe you can smile a little bit about that when you toss their letters into the trash.
 
2013-01-09 01:38:38 PM
I wonder when the tipping point was?  The point we went from citizens and tax payers to prey.  .  .
 
2013-01-09 01:38:41 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Fizpez: MN8: You mean the policy that excludes flood damage? They choose not to pay for Flood Coverage, then got a flooded house and are now butt hurt?

From the last 4 times I read this story they pretty much have witnesses that said the roof was gona and some of the walls had been destroyed by high winds well before the storm surge destroyed the rest of what was left.

Seems to me it would be like having a house fire and them claiming the damage was "flood related" because the fire hoses got everything wet.

To say nothing of the fact that that insurance companies are notorious for using the "you got flooded, no check!" excuse whenever there's storm damage, even when there's clear evidence that a storm surge never reached a property.


A different article had a statement that the owners used to have flood insurance but their monthly payments were more than the amounts they received from prior damages (what were they claiming, every bit of rain damage??). So they willingly admit that they gave up the necessary insurance but Allstate should pay for that, too.

I have a hard time feeling badly for these people.
 
2013-01-09 01:50:46 PM
I like this bit FTFA: The Trainas said they previously had flood insurance, provided by the U.S. government's National Flood Insurance Program, but their payments were more than the reimbursement amounts they received for previous incidents.

So these people lived in a flood zone, had been flooded before, but made an active decision to stop covering their home for flood damage.

But to this matter - while I can fully believe Allstate is run by a bunch of crooked pricks, alleging that the home was totally destroyed by the wind doesn't sound all that likely. Was it damaged from the wind? Almost certainly, and Allstate doesn't deny that (by way of their $10k offer).

Yes, a witness claimed part of the roof and walls were blown off before the flood hit - but what does that mean? Shingles and siding? Or the entire roof and the full wall? Is the witness impartial? Should we look at how reliable witness testimony is? Where was the witness when they saw this?

These people may have some very valid compaints, but unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to determine how much damage was caused by the wind vs. how much by the flood. However, they had full knowledge of a likely hazard and purposely didn't insure against it, so they are largely in a mess that they created. It's much easier to blame some big, bad corporation than to take responsibility for your decisions.
 
2013-01-09 01:51:35 PM

ringersol: mjohnson71: "I feel bad for their losses: but godammit people, stop living so close to water and being shocked when you get flooded."

I'm guessing you're not suggesting that people who live in seaside homes on cliffs shouldn't be surprised if their homes flood.
So we're talking grey areas based on elevation and surrounding elevation and climate and history, not simply lateral distance from the shore.
So the reasonable, relevant question quickly becomes: "When's the last time that area flooded"?

If they live in a place that hasn't flooded in, say, the last hundred years or so, I think it's reasonable to be surprised when it happens.
I have no idea what the particulars are for *this* particular situation. I'm just saying simple proximity to water isn't a real useful measure on its own.

Not for determining whether these people are dumb for being surprised, nor for gauging how novel a storm of this strength in this area really was.


I would actually think the opposite. If you live in a place that hasn't flooded in a 100 yrs or so, I'd be thinking it's due sooner than later.
 
2013-01-09 01:54:53 PM
www.nndb.com

Another instance of Obamacare.
 
2013-01-09 01:55:29 PM
correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Allstate that stiffed everyone in Katrina that had a flood insurance with them? I recall them claiming that it was wind damage as their customers' furnishings floated down the street.
 
2013-01-09 01:56:28 PM
When you're in the market for insurance you might want to think twice about buying a policy with the company which uses "Mayhem" as its spokesperson.
 
2013-01-09 01:56:29 PM

FreakinB: ImRonBurgundy: I'm pissed off now, Allstate. Look, I go to you. I stick up for you. You don't help me now. I say "Fark you," Allstate, I do it myself.

They really didn't appreciate your offering of a cigar and rum. Or your chicken sacrifice.


Thanks, that sounded really familiar, but I couldn't place the reference.
 
2013-01-09 01:57:03 PM

MN8: You mean the policy that excludes flood damage? They choose not to pay for Flood Coverage, then got a flooded house and are now butt hurt?


Yup. The same thing that happened with Katrina. The winds start the problem but the water destroys it. What's the difference in damage with and without the flooding? That's all the insurance company should pay for.

ogger: just a quick note for everyone saying "why didn't they have flood insurance" - if your property is not in a federally mapped flood zone, then you cannot purchase flood insurance. it's not something you can buy just for kicks.

that said, i have no idea if they were in a federal flood zone or not.


They were. They decided it wasn't worth it.
 
2013-01-09 01:58:27 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Allstate that stiffed everyone in Katrina that had a flood insurance with them? I recall them claiming that it was wind damage as their customers' furnishings floated down the street.


Allstate doesn't write flood insurance... you do

By you, I mean the subsidized National Flood Insurance Plan, which sells under-priced flood insurance to the rich (in a way)
 
2013-01-09 02:00:47 PM

eKonk: I like this bit FTFA: The Trainas said they previously had flood insurance, provided by the U.S. government's National Flood Insurance Program, but their payments were more than the reimbursement amounts they received for previous incidents.

So these people lived in a flood zone, had been flooded before, but made an active decision to stop covering their home for flood damage.

But to this matter - while I can fully believe Allstate is run by a bunch of crooked pricks, alleging that the home was totally destroyed by the wind doesn't sound all that likely. Was it damaged from the wind? Almost certainly, and Allstate doesn't deny that (by way of their $10k offer).

Yes, a witness claimed part of the roof and walls were blown off before the flood hit - but what does that mean? Shingles and siding? Or the entire roof and the full wall? Is the witness impartial? Should we look at how reliable witness testimony is? Where was the witness when they saw this?

These people may have some very valid compaints, but unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to determine how much damage was caused by the wind vs. how much by the flood. However, they had full knowledge of a likely hazard and purposely didn't insure against it, so they are largely in a mess that they created. It's much easier to blame some big, bad corporation than to take responsibility for your decisions.


That;s kind of where I'm at on this. The insurer won't just take a neighbor's account, and they would be foolish to do so. Insurance fraud is very real, and is a reason premiums can be high. My guess is the insurer requires some sort of proof that the damage was from wind and not the flood/surge. Since they aren't getting paid, it probably doesn't exist. Most insurers have an appeals process, that can seem likea pain in the butt, and the couple should explore this option. Some policies end with an option for arbitration, which may also be an option. Or they could just lawyer up and go straight to court.
 
2013-01-09 02:02:37 PM

durbnpoisn: stiletto_the_wise: LOL Insurance is a scam. And water is wet.


This. But it's also illegal to own anthing important (like a car or a house) without it.

Funny story...
I've had the same insurance guys since I started driving 25 years ago. Father and son team ran an Allstate office in town. One day my wife went down there too pay the bill, and the office was empty and locked up. They totally just left town without a word.

I did run into a problem with them only once. I got into a wreck. I was sitting at a light. I wasn't even moving. I got hit by the car that caused the wreck when it ricoched. That was no fun.
So I go to my "friends" of 25 years and say:
"hey, can you help me with a rental car?"
"No. You didn't have that on your policy."
"C'mon guys! 25 years without EVER making a claim and you can't help me with something that was clearly not my fault?!"
"No."

Assholes. Capitalists.


FTFY. Going "above and beyond" what is in your contract is socializm/charity/welfare (take your pick).
 
2013-01-09 02:06:57 PM

JK47: That's not how it works at all. First, the loss of the roof would have resulted in damage and loss regarding personal property and contents. Secondly, the structure would have been damage as the roof was torn away and the exposure of the interior load-bearing walls to the full force of the wind would have further compromised the structural integrity of the home. Thus, the home was badly weakened by the time the surge arrived which is why the surge was able to collapse the structure. In all likelihood, had the surge not occurred, the building would have needed significant reconstruction in order to be habitable and up to code.

So from the standpoint of adjusting, the claim needs to reflect the contribution made by a covered peril to the overall loss.


You're both wrong. There is a clause in a standard homeowners policy that says this:

We (the insurance company) do not cover loss to any property resulting directly or indirectly from any of the following. Such a loss is excluded even if another peril or event contributed concurrently or in any sequence to the loss:

Water damage (including flood, surface water, waves tidal waves, overflow of a body of water)


It's an absolute exclusion. It doesn't matter the order in which the perils happened. The damage is excluded. Simply put, there should have been a flood policy.
 
2013-01-09 02:10:09 PM
Anyone every have claims on USAA homeowner's insurance? I had just switch to them for auto and literally less than two weeks of switching, my wife was rear-ended and the person that hit her drove off. Zero problems on the repair claim, was very easy.

Thinking of switching to them for homeowner's as well.
 
2013-01-09 02:11:50 PM

Bruce Campbell: It's an absolute exclusion. It doesn't matter the order in which the perils happened. The damage is excluded. Simply put, there should have been a flood policy.


To a point. If the water damage is the result of another cause of loss, then it would be covered.

ie firehoses due to a fire, or rain due to the roof being removed by wind.

Allstate is saying, yes your roof was damaged by wind - $10k. No the wind had nothing to do with the storm surge wrecking the rest of the house.
 
2013-01-09 02:12:56 PM

wingnut396: Anyone every have claims on USAA homeowner's insurance? I had just switch to them for auto and literally less than two weeks of switching, my wife was rear-ended and the person that hit her drove off. Zero problems on the repair claim, was very easy.

Thinking of switching to them for homeowner's as well.


Auto insurance is way different than homeowners insurance. Much more cut & dry
 
2013-01-09 02:13:17 PM

Anastacya: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Fizpez: MN8: You mean the policy that excludes flood damage? They choose not to pay for Flood Coverage, then got a flooded house and are now butt hurt?

From the last 4 times I read this story they pretty much have witnesses that said the roof was gona and some of the walls had been destroyed by high winds well before the storm surge destroyed the rest of what was left.

Seems to me it would be like having a house fire and them claiming the damage was "flood related" because the fire hoses got everything wet.

To say nothing of the fact that that insurance companies are notorious for using the "you got flooded, no check!" excuse whenever there's storm damage, even when there's clear evidence that a storm surge never reached a property.

A different article had a statement that the owners used to have flood insurance but their monthly payments were more than the amounts they received from prior damages (what were they claiming, every bit of rain damage??). So they willingly admit that they gave up the necessary insurance but Allstate should pay for that, too.

I have a hard time feeling badly for these people.


Again, you are taking Allstate's claim that the damage in question was flood damage at face value, even though there were witnesses who claim otherwise. Likewise, it's really hard to square the freakin' roof coming off with the claim that it's "flood damage". That sounds very much like Allstate trying to weasle out of a legitimate claim by using the flooding clause as a loophole.

And, again, it is well known that insurance companies frequently claim flood damage even when it's extremely obvious that it was not the case in order to get out of paying claims.
 
2013-01-09 02:13:56 PM

poot_rootbeer: This story had to be greenlit again because the wind was really strong and caused the last two greenlights to spontaneously collapse before they hit CommonFark.

I sware it's true because my neighbor saw it happen.


I think it's an infinite loop anomaly in the parallel UltraFark dimension which manifests its....

...carrier lost
 
2013-01-09 02:17:45 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Again, you are taking Allstate's claim that the damage in question was flood damage at face value, even though there were witnesses who claim otherwise. Likewise, it's really hard to square the freakin' roof coming off with the claim that it's "flood damage". That sounds very much like Allstate trying to weasle out of a legitimate claim by using the flooding clause as a loophole.


I don't think it's really that hard to prove/disprove. If the damage was due to flooding/storm surge, most likely their neighbors experienced flood damage.

If the neighbors didn't experience any flood damage, then the wind probably did it.

Most likely there were a few other houses in the neighborhood just like these people's.
 
2013-01-09 02:18:13 PM

chuggernaught: fustanella: I am unsurprised. After Allstate pulled home insurance from Florida (after fifteen years of no claims, enjoy my money), we attempted to cancel our auto insurance with them. It took three months, and calls to corporate and (for lulz) the BBB, for them to refund our prepaid premium balance.

First, if you were insured and paid premiums, that means that company was liable while you were insured. If you or the company ends the contract that doesn't mean you get your money back.


In this case, I can see how Allstate would owe a prorated refund on the home insurance for the period that coverage was prepaid for but not provided.

It would be nice for them to offer voluntary cancellation of other policies such as auto insurance to go along with that, but barring any requirement in the states' laws I don't see why they should be legally or morally obligated to do that.
 
2013-01-09 02:19:45 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Allstate that stiffed everyone in Katrina that had a flood insurance with them? I recall them claiming that it was wind damage as their customers' furnishings floated down the street.


It was the homeowners that were claiming wind damage while their funishings floated down the street.

But, i see where you were going with that one.
 
2013-01-09 02:20:57 PM

eKonk: Almost certainly, and Allstate doesn't deny that (by way of their $10k offer).


That $10k could represent loss of use coverage that can be triggered as a result of a storm and the enactment of mandatory evacuations, which this place had. It could be losses to personal property from flood when trying to protect property by moving property from the premises to a location deemed safer by the insured. When this is done, it broadens coverage to include perils not normally insured against. It could also represent some default coverages for personal articles which is an "all risk" form of coverage, and would include flood. Essentially, just because Allstate paid something to the claimant does not mean that they conceded anything about the nature of the loss.
 
2013-01-09 02:21:06 PM
My father's Allstate agent spent the premiums on hookers and blow, so I am getting a kick out of this thread.

/yes, literally, the guy was a thieving philandering crack addict
//found out when Hurricane Fran came and there was no coverage because the policy had lapsed
 
2013-01-09 02:24:08 PM

MugzyBrown: To a point. If the water damage is the result of another cause of loss, then it would be covered.


It doesn't say that. You're referring to proximate cause. The contract is not written on that basis.
 
2013-01-09 02:32:13 PM

mjohnson71: I feel bad for their losses: but godammit people, stop living so close to water and being shocked when you get flooded.


Alternatively, buy a damn NFIP policy - it's like $250 for the YEAR. Also, take a bit of time (yes, and money) and make sure your place can withstand a 100-year flood. Hell, if you plan on owning the place for a long time, plan for the 500-year flood.

The hassle you save yourself during the first hurricane/major rainstorm, not to mention the fact that your shiat won't get ruined (financially speaking as well as literally) will more than be worth it.

// a "100-year flood" is a major flood with a 1% annual chance of happening
// for the life of a 30-year mortgage, a 100-year flood has a 25% chance of happening (PDF warning) once
// you wanna take a 1-in-4 gamble on your house and everything in it?
 
2013-01-09 02:35:12 PM

Anastacya: A different article had a statement that the owners used to have flood insurance but their monthly payments were more than the amounts they received from prior damages (what were they claiming, every bit of rain damage??). So they willingly admit that they gave up the necessary insurance but Allstate should pay for that, too.


you're really just one of those people, aren't you. One of the ones that think the elite deserve to be elite, because the rest of us - which you never realize includes yourself - don't even deserve what we're already getting.

What part of the fact that the damage wasn't caused by the flood - which shows no evidence of actually reaching the property - do you not understand? What part of witnesses to the damage being caused by wind is not clear to you? That they cancelled flood insurance is irrelevant to damages which were not in fact caused by a flood. Why is that not clear to you? Why must the working class be the irresponsible party, in your eyes?
 
2013-01-09 02:36:21 PM

Jument: Elegy: Yawn. Insurance companies become the enemy from the second you file the claim. Their profitability is founded on keeping premiums high and payouts low, after all.

Bingo. And that's exactly why Americans want insurance companies to run their health care. Wait...


+1
 
2013-01-09 02:43:22 PM

mark.jms: mjohnson71: ringersol: mjohnson71: "I feel bad for their losses: but godammit people, stop living so close to water and being shocked when you get flooded."

Not for determining whether these people are dumb for being surprised, nor for gauging how novel a storm of this strength in this area really was.

The last time this area had a significant earthquake was like 201 years ago.

1812_New_Madrid_earthquake

Doesn't stop me from every year writing a $220 check for the earthquake insurance rider on my house.

Indeed. I do the same thing for that same reason.

Plus it covers volcano, so I'm pretty sure I'm gold if Yellowstone goes.


I do the same as well. I do it because I live in the shadow of one of the largest active volcanoes in the country, and off the coast of one of the largest subduction zones in the world. Both are due to pop.

My neighbors are farked, but I'll get paid.
 
2013-01-09 02:51:22 PM

Some 'Splainin' To Do: Anastacya: Some 'Splainin' To Do: Fizpez: MN8: ...
Again, you are taking Allstate's claim that the damage in question was flood damage at face value, even though there were witnesses who claim otherwise. Likewise, it's really hard to square the freakin' roof coming off with the claim that it's "flood damage". That sounds very much like Allstate trying to weasle out of a legitimate claim by using the flooding clause as a loophole.

And, again, it is well known that insurance companies frequently claim flood damage even when it's extremely obvious that it was not the case in order to get out of paying claims.


IamAwake: Anastacya: A different article had a statement that the owners used to have flood insurance but their monthly payments were more than the amounts they received from prior damages (what were they claiming, every bit of rain damage??). So they willingly admit that they gave up the necessary insurance but Allstate should pay for that, too.

you're really just one of those people, aren't you. One of the ones that think the elite deserve to be elite, because the rest of us - which you never realize includes yourself - don't even deserve what we're already getting.

What part of the fact that the damage wasn't caused by the flood - which shows no evidence of actually reaching the property - do you not understand? What part of witnesses to the damage being caused by wind is not clear to you? That they cancelled flood insurance is irrelevant to damages which were not in fact caused by a flood. Why is that not clear to you? Why must the working class be the irresponsible party, in your eyes?


It was one (singular) "neighbor" in all 4 versions of this story that have been posted online. The couple, AKA the policyholders, are presenting hearsay as evidence. They were not witnesses to the damage and only heard from a "neighbor" about the order of the damage, which is irrelevant in most insurance contracts.

/People that biatch about getting screwed over by insurance companies are usually the ones that don't read their damn contracts.
 
2013-01-09 02:51:46 PM

Bruce Campbell: It doesn't say that. You're referring to proximate cause. The contract is not written on that basis.


All standard HO-3 forms are written on that basis.

The resultant damage from a covered cause of loss is also covered.

From the New Hampshire Dept of Insurance:

Q. The interior of my home, including furniture and flooring, has been damaged
by rain from the storm. Is that covered by my homeowner policy?

A. Maybe. Damage to property in your home caused by rain or
wind blown water is covered under a homeowner's policy IF the damage is the
direct result of an opening in the roof or wall of the home that was caused by
wind.
 
2013-01-09 02:53:47 PM

IamAwake: What part of the fact that the damage wasn't caused by the flood - which shows no evidence of actually reaching the property - do you not understand? What part of witnesses to the damage being caused by wind is not clear to you? That they cancelled flood insurance is irrelevant to damages which were not in fact caused by a flood. Why is that not clear to you? Why must the working class be the irresponsible party, in your eyes?


the part where the witness had flood damage to their basement, meaning unless their house was much more elevated, the water did reach their house. the part where the owners cancelled their flood insurance because the premiums they paid exceeded their total claims over the years, meaning that there was atleast minor flooding on their property.


stonicus: Jument: Elegy: Yawn. Insurance companies become the enemy from the second you file the claim. Their profitability is founded on keeping premiums high and payouts low, after all.

Bingo. And that's exactly why Americans want insurance companies to run their health care. Wait...

+1


what i don't understand the argument against universal healthcare is how it'll bankrupt the federal government. isn't the private health insurance companies makes billions in profit a year? how does a take over of a highly profitable industry end up being a money sink?
 
2013-01-09 02:55:04 PM

IamAwake: What part of the fact that the damage wasn't caused by the flood - which shows no evidence of actually reaching the property - do you not understand? What part of witnesses to the damage being caused by wind is not clear to you? That they cancelled flood insurance is irrelevant to damages which were not in fact caused by a flood. Why is that not clear to you? Why must the working class be the irresponsible party, in your eyes?


Because they are the irresponsible party by not purchasing flood insurance. The part of the fact that prior to her loss being adjusted, she is quoted to have said, "if only we had a 20 foot seawall, we might've had a chance." Those things only protect against flood, not wind.

Link

Pic 7 of her in front of her house after the storm. It that picture isn't indicative of a flood loss, I'll eat my own hat.
 
2013-01-09 02:55:19 PM

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Elegy: Yawn. Insurance companies become the enemy from the second you file the claim. Their profitability is founded on keeping premiums high and payouts low, after all.

Well.... I love Geico. Two accidents filed with them, both the other guy's fault. On the first one, the other insurance company (yes, it was Farmers) gave everyone, including Geico, the runaround. Geico rep say "Hrmph!" and had Geico promptly pay me for the repairs, then took Farmers to court (and won, including damages and court costs). Second one they simply expedited all around, kept everyone in the loop, and the other insurance paid. This was about 5 and 2 years ago. Did my rates go up? Nope, they went DOWN. $28/month for decent coverage. Finally, their automated phone system is a farking dream to deal with. And you can get insurance card copies/policy copies in about 5 minutes via email,


THIS! Geico has been very helpful when needed.
 
2013-01-09 02:56:39 PM

not5am: IamAwake: What part of the fact that the damage wasn't caused by the flood - which shows no evidence of actually reaching the property - do you not understand? What part of witnesses to the damage being caused by wind is not clear to you? That they cancelled flood insurance is irrelevant to damages which were not in fact caused by a flood. Why is that not clear to you? Why must the working class be the irresponsible party, in your eyes?

the part where the witness had flood damage to their basement, meaning unless their house was much more elevated, the water did reach their house. the part where the owners cancelled their flood insurance because the premiums they paid exceeded their total claims over the years, meaning that there was atleast minor flooding on their property.


stonicus: Jument: Elegy: Yawn. Insurance companies become the enemy from the second you file the claim. Their profitability is founded on keeping premiums high and payouts low, after all.

Bingo. And that's exactly why Americans want insurance companies to run their health care. Wait...

+1

what i don't understand the argument against universal healthcare is how it'll bankrupt the federal government. isn't the private health insurance companies makes billions in profit a year? how does a take over of a highly profitable industry end up being a money sink?


Because illegal immigrants! Terrorists! Benghazi! Dey took er jerbs! Wharragarble!
 
2013-01-09 02:56:59 PM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: This is the third greenight on this story. (at least)


Not only that, it is Yahoo rehosting the same ABC article that was the original greenlight.
 
2013-01-09 03:01:01 PM

Bruce Campbell: eKonk: Almost certainly, and Allstate doesn't deny that (by way of their $10k offer).

That $10k could represent loss of use coverage that can be triggered as a result of a storm and the enactment of mandatory evacuations, which this place had. It could be losses to personal property from flood when trying to protect property by moving property from the premises to a location deemed safer by the insured. When this is done, it broadens coverage to include perils not normally insured against. It could also represent some default coverages for personal articles which is an "all risk" form of coverage, and would include flood. Essentially, just because Allstate paid something to the claimant does not mean that they conceded anything about the nature of the loss.


Fair point.

My main point here is that while I am quite convinced Allstate owes these people something, I think the claim that Allstate owes them for everything is way off base.
 
2013-01-09 03:01:12 PM

not5am: what i don't understand the argument against universal healthcare is how it'll bankrupt the federal government. isn't the private health insurance companies makes billions in profit a year? how does a take over of a highly profitable industry end up being a money sink?


So the government will be underwriting risks and charging appropriate premiums?

orrrr will they just blanket tax people and there will be no financial consequence to people's actions?
 
2013-01-09 03:02:42 PM
You live in a town with "beach" in the name. You live on a farking island. How 'bout carrying some flood insurance?
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report