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 03:03:04 PM

MugzyBrown: 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.


Rain is not flood. The anti-concurrent causation pertains to:

Water damage, meaning: Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind,"

Unless the rain came up from the ground, it isn't a problem.
 
2013-01-09 03:05:21 PM

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?


Where did you get your "fact" that the damage wasn't caused by flood? There is some evidence (witness report) of wind damage before the flood, but there's no good quantification of how much damage in the several stories I've seen on this. And yes, there is plenty of evidence of flood water reaching the property - that is actually not something I have seen disputed at all. The dispute is over how much damage was caused by wind vs. how much by flood, and what happened first.
 
2013-01-09 03:09:35 PM

eKonk: 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.


I really wish it were that easy, but it isn't. The problem is that every time an issue comes up about concurrent causation, it seems to be dealt with half-heartedly and almost inconsistently by the courts. Simply paying claims where this clause exists opens up the insurer to the precedent of, "You paid for this person's uncovered loss, and I expect you to pay for mine."
 
2013-01-09 03:23:04 PM

MugzyBrown: 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?


no idea. i was begging the question of how a highly profitable industry will somehow bleed money if the government took over. i'm sure the opponents of universal healthcare has done thorough studies by their TOP MEN to come to this conclusion.
 
2013-01-09 03:26:27 PM

millsapian87: Just like how AIG is showing "Thanks America" commercials while suing the US government over the bailout they received.


Nice trollage there. Where is your fact article to back it up?

All I read so far (summary of all sources) was the Ex-CEO and certain stockholders (who own a good portion of the stock) want to talk AIG into joining their lawsuit.

Who knew that a company would give time for a meeting to their stockholders who hold a good portion of their stock? I guess they didn't have to.
 
2013-01-09 03:29:15 PM
Since Allstate left Florida should they still be allowed to call themselves Allstate?
 
2013-01-09 03:41:49 PM

Schwhat: millsapian87: Just like how AIG is showing "Thanks America" commercials while suing the US government over the bailout they received.

Nice trollage there. Where is your fact article to back it up?

All I read so far (summary of all sources) was the Ex-CEO and certain stockholders (who own a good portion of the stock) want to talk AIG into joining their lawsuit.

Who knew that a company would give time for a meeting to their stockholders who hold a good portion of their stock? I guess they didn't have to.


And it's official: AIG declines to be a part of the suit.
 
2013-01-09 03:51:37 PM
For anyone new to insurance: Statefarm is the only major insurance brand who will just pay for claims without hassling the shiat out of you. They cost a little more, and they wont touch you with a 10 foot pole if you have a shiatty history, but when its time to cut a check, they are are johnny on the spot.
 
2013-01-09 03:55:44 PM

wingnut396: USAA


USAA's auto insurance is direct through them, their homeowner's is not. I had their homeowners, but the premiums kept going up, so I switched to another company with the same coverage but half the cost.

Same thing with their VA loans, they are serviced through the site...but not provided by USAA, and I've heard bad things about them. We have one RV loan through them, but we've gotten better rates for the other vehicles elsewhere.

Their auto insurance is the best we've ever had, although I'm not too excited about adding a teenager soon. :)
 
2013-01-09 03:57:44 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?


No, they claim the wind has destroyed their home. Unlikely. (Note I live around 20miles from that place.
 
2013-01-09 04:23:50 PM

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?


I love the extrapolation that you took from my comment. For starters, I am not stating that there is EXCLUSIVELY flood damage. Secondly, I don't care if they are working class or one of the elite. If there are conditions that someone doesn't meet, then they don't meet them. It would be really easy to get your friends (especially since everyone in the neighborhood is in the same boat, most likely) to say that the wind damaged their home before the water came along.

Finally, a different article did state that there was water damage. Oh, and lastly, I don't think that I am entitled to anything. But thanks for belittling me and coming up with a resounding review of my personality based upon an internet comment.
 
2013-01-09 04:26:45 PM
Actually, after reflecting on this, I think I side with the insurance agency.

It doesn't really matter if the wind took the roof off before the storm surge got there, the fact (as far as I can tell from the article) is that the storm surge came anyway and it would have taken the house down with or without the roof.

If they didn't have flood insurance, and the flood would have destroyed the house anyway, what does it matter if the roof came off a few minutes prior from the wind?
 
2013-01-09 04:28:31 PM

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.


This is not at all true. I've even gotten mail solicitation from FEMA recommending insurance. Their ads specifically mention the surprisingly high number of homes that get flood damage but were not in a known or rated flood plain. "Don't be like those poor suckers" is the message.

The insurance is fairly cheap if you're not in a flood zone. If you are, it can be pretty steep, which I expect is the main reason why people on the coast or other obviously risky areas don't buy it. So now is when they dip into that hundreds of dollars a month they've been shrewdly saving.

The federal insurance has a cap of $250k for the home (and $100k for its contents), which is plenty for most homes in the country, but seems inadequate for a lot of the ones that are close to an ocean or even a nice lake. I'm not sure what you can get if your rebuild costs would be significantly above that.
 
2013-01-09 04:46:28 PM

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

This


This
 
2013-01-09 04:58:05 PM

OccamsWhiskers: 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.

This is not at all true. I've even gotten mail solicitation from FEMA recommending insurance. Their ads specifically mention the surprisingly high number of homes that get flood damage but were not in a known or rated flood plain. "Don't be like those poor suckers" is the message.

The insurance is fairly cheap if you're not in a flood zone. If you are, it can be pretty steep, which I expect is the main reason why people on the coast or other obviously risky areas don't buy it. So now is when they dip into that hundreds of dollars a month they've been shrewdly saving.

The federal insurance has a cap of $250k for the home (and $100k for its contents), which is plenty for most homes in the country, but seems inadequate for a lot of the ones that are close to an ocean or even a nice lake. I'm not sure what you can get if your rebuild costs would be significantly above that.


With regards to the cap, I would think that the only time location would really come into play for rebuilding costs is if it's expensive to obtain or transport materials. Such as an island that only has ferry service, no bridge from the mainland. Being in a affluent coastal area on the mainland is not necessarily indicative of higher reconstruction costs.
 
2013-01-09 05:58:21 PM

KrustyKitten: Being in a affluent coastal area on the mainland is not necessarily indicative of higher reconstruction costs.


Right. It's often the land that's really valuable, not the structure that sits on it.

Especially so with modern prefab McConstruction.
 
2013-01-09 06:36:04 PM

KrustyKitten: With regards to the cap, I would think that the only time location would really come into play for rebuilding costs is if it's expensive to obtain or transport materials. Such as an island that only has ferry service, no bridge from the mainland. Being in a affluent coastal area on the mainland is not necessarily indicative of higher reconstruction costs.


Changes to local ordinances and building codes can have a significant impact on the cost to rebuild one of these homes. Considering the homes here were predominantly built pre-FIRM, they were grandfathered into a cheaper flood program, and were more than likely built below the now established and anticipated base flood elevation. In a total loss they will be subject to conforming with flood zone construction requirements where the lowest floor elevation must be above the anticipated base flood elevation. This requirement is typically incorporated in the building codes of NFIP participating municipalities. That would require backfilling the basement and building with an elevated foundation solution, which is far more expensive than a slab on grade or basement foundation, especially if you want to keep the same heated square footage.
 
2013-01-09 07:37:45 PM
I love the story my Grandma tells me about insurance when she was young. At the time insurance salesmen used to stick their foot in the door jamb to keep up their pitch. My great grandfather slammed the door on his foot so hard the guy broke it.

One of my favorites.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:41 PM
Okay, here's my Allstate story. Back when airbags first started showing up on American cars guess which insurance company tried to not pay for replacing deployed airbags. Our bodyshop couldn't release the cars without operating airbags. Some customers opted to pay for it themselves while fighting the insurance company. Some customers let the cars sit at the shop till the insurance company finally relented and one customer came in to get his car wether it had an airbag or not. He ended up being escorted out in cuffs. Nobody liked working on Allstate jobs.
 
2013-01-09 08:47:31 PM

DeathCipris: This. Also, I would like to throw in that not all states require that your car is insured.


Might want to throw that one back since New Hampshire is the only state that currently doesn't require car insurance.

/Wisconsin only started to require it 3 or 4 years ago.
//Uninsured rates are still around 14% nationwide and anything below 10% is considered doing great.
 
2013-01-09 09:57:33 PM
The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

The insurance company offered the Trainas, who did not have flood insurance

THE TRAINAS, WHO DID NOT HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE
 
Displayed 21 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