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  
•       •       •

11696 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
 
2013-01-09 11:49:45 AM
Well, it looks like getting the "Good Hands", they just got the finger.
 
2013-01-09 11:55:53 AM
This is the third greenight on this story. (at least)
 
2013-01-09 11:57:29 AM
Works better when you read this in Dennis Haysbert's voice...
 
2013-01-09 11:59:05 AM
We took some damage from the hurricane, and allstate was a complete clusterfark to deal with on a very straight forward flooded car claim. Thankfully we didn't need the money urgently, but it still took almost 2 months to see a check, and every phone call we would have with them would end with us being told something different, them asking for stuff they already had, etc.

Needless to say, as soon as the check cleared, the first thing I did was find a new insurance company.
 
2013-01-09 11:59:05 AM

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


This
 
2013-01-09 11:59:53 AM
Allstate, you're in good UFIA.
 
DGS [TotalFark]
2013-01-09 12:00:26 PM
Stay tuned next week when this story breaks.
 
2013-01-09 12:00:57 PM
It's almost like we've had this thread before...
 
2013-01-09 12:01:40 PM
Again? Damn Allstate.
 
MN8
2013-01-09 12:02:25 PM
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?
 
2013-01-09 12:04:48 PM
Gee, you think with all the negative publicity they are getting from this, they'd say, "Oh, our bad, our initial claims of flood damages were incorrect blah blah blah anyways here's the full amount you were covered for."

But I guess I just don't think like a business man.
 
2013-01-09 12:05:28 PM
An insurance company pissing on a customer? Urine good hands, indeed!
 
2013-01-09 12:06:52 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?


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.

/although if you do have a fire, smoke and water will do WAY more damage than the actual fire ever did.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:03 PM
Has Allstate ever paid a claim? That used to be their problem years ago anyway.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:11 PM
Just like how AIG is showing "Thanks America" commercials while suing the US government over the bailout they received.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:26 PM
Quotes from neighbours suggest the house was damaged far before the flooding was a factor.
 
2013-01-09 12:07:37 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?


You mean you read the article? Like the part where the roof of the house came off from the wind?
 
2013-01-09 12:07:43 PM
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.
 
2013-01-09 12:11:57 PM
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.
 
2013-01-09 12:13:48 PM
Why should they pay? $9.7B was just approved by the people who apparently ARE supposed to pay.

/only half serious
//or less
 
2013-01-09 12:14:10 PM
Here's my suggestion:
ATTENTION ALLSATES BIGGEST COMPETITOR IN THAT MARKET.

Go to these people. Fix their house. Get them to switch to you. Then pay them to be spokespeople for you.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:00 PM

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.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:23 PM
It's the ol' Katrina scam. Wind blew the roof off the house, which is covered. Oops, 6 inches of water so now it's flood damage. What, you didn't purchase extra flood insurance? Sorry, go cry somewhere else.
 
2013-01-09 12:16:51 PM
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?
 
2013-01-09 12:17:10 PM
New Derp Beach?

/it's strong in these ones
 
2013-01-09 12:18:00 PM

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.
 
2013-01-09 12:18:12 PM
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.
 
2013-01-09 12:18:28 PM
Deja Thread...

They didn't buy flood insurance and live near the water. The only thing Allstate has to go on is a hearsay from the couple about a neighbor that saw the wind collapse the roof.
 
2013-01-09 12:18:41 PM
They'll be OK though. 9 billion dollars worth of rum and library roofs are coming their way.
 
2013-01-09 12:18:48 PM
LOL Insurance is a scam. And water is wet.
 
2013-01-09 12:19:27 PM

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

This


Does anyone at Fark even try any more.
I picture a den of Kentucky WOW gold farmers where every once in a while the foreman randomly selects a thread to go green and shouts "Go Green?"
Then the farmers all look up and shout back "Go Green!!"
They all do a shot of Makers Mark, the foreman posts the thread and the workers go back to gold farming some gold.
 
2013-01-09 12:19:48 PM
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 who own it and refusing to pay off their policy

FTFY
And when you're in good hands, that means balled fists pounding you senseless

/apparanetly
 
2013-01-09 12:20:21 PM

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.


Clearly they didn't appreciate your offering of a cigar and rum. Or the chicken sacrifice.
 
2013-01-09 12:21:09 PM
Crap, computer got weird. Sorry for the double post.
 
2013-01-09 12:22:22 PM
Fizpez:
if you do have a fire, smoke and water will do WAY more damage than the actual fire ever did.

i48.tinypic.com

And sometimes not.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:03 PM
In Other News:

You know the picture of the destroyed Staten Island home that Allstate uses in the ad patting
themselves on the back . . . oh, never mind.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:42 PM

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


They are not suing the government. A group of shareholders are (led by the ex-CEO who was forced out for screwing up the company), and they've put a motion before the board for AIG to join the suit. The board is required to consider the proposal, which they are doing today. I would be rather surprised if they actually joined the suit considering what a PR shiat-storm this has been already.
 
2013-01-09 12:23:51 PM
Gold is like rape so I said it twice.

/gold
//rape
///goldilocks rapenstein
////rumpled foreskin spins gold from the foreskins of our fore fathers
////my train of thought has derailed
 
2013-01-09 12:24:06 PM

DeathCipris: Deja Thread...

They didn't buy flood insurance and live near the water.


I searched Google Maps to see where New Dorp Beach is. According to what they have marked off this couple (at most) lives like 10 or 11 blocks from the ocean.

I feel bad for their losses: but godammit people, stop living so close to water and being shocked when you get flooded.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:16 PM

Fizpez: 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.


If Allstate has physical evidence that suggests the eyewitness accounts are not truthful, and the cause of the damage actually was flooding, they are right to deny the claim.

/although if you do have a fire, smoke and water will do WAY more damage than the actual fire ever did.

Letting a fire burn unchecked will destroy everything you own and maybe some of your neighbors' property. Extinguishing a fire will leave you with smoke and water damage destroying only most of what you own.
 
2013-01-09 12:24:17 PM
Satanic_Hamster: "Go to these people. Fix their house. Get them to switch to you. Then pay them to be spokespeople for you."

The problem with that? AllStates' competition are all busily doing the same thing to their own customers.
Trying to use this to get press would only cause one of their own wronged customers to stand up and get press.

Then they're out a few hundred grand for a stab at a 'positive' story that's backfired.
And instead of their competitor getting a shiat ton of bad press, driving people to their door *anyway*, now the bad press is (also) on them.
 
2013-01-09 12:27:37 PM
The original purpose of flood insurance (mudslides included) was to ensure communities had building codes that would prevent damage to homes in flood-prone areas. Strange, no?
 
2013-01-09 12:28:37 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Here's my suggestion:
ATTENTION ALLSATES BIGGEST COMPETITOR IN THAT MARKET.

Go to these people. Fix their house. Get them to switch to you. Then pay them to be spokespeople for you.


Good business plan.. pay out uncovered claim for $250,000, receive $20,000 in new premiums!
 
2013-01-09 12:28:43 PM

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.
 
2013-01-09 12:30:10 PM
Talk to any lawyer who deals with insurance companies regularly. Ask them which company sucks the most.
 
2013-01-09 12:30:41 PM
True Fact:

The Washington State Bar Association runs training for attorneys specifically on how to deal with Allstate. That is how big a pack of douchebags they are. Even lawyers hate them.
 
2013-01-09 12:31:28 PM
This would never happen to Mark Trail.
 
2013-01-09 12:32:41 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.


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.
 
2013-01-09 12:32:51 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 - a major flood
// for the life of a 30-year mortgage, a 100-year flood has a 25% chance of happening
// you wanna take a 1-in-4 gamble on your house and everything in it?
 
2013-01-09 12:34:04 PM
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.
 
2013-01-09 12:34:09 PM

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


If you own it you, it is not illegal to not have insurance on it. If the bank or finance company owns it and you have a lease to own on...then yeah.
Some states make you carry a no-fault insurance on a car, but that covers the other guy, not you.
 
2013-01-09 12:35:01 PM

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


I see no problem with this, especially as the story's been escalating. The sad part is that Allstate is attempting to claim the house was destroyed by flooding, and therefore not their problem, even though the house was clearly knocked over by a friggin' hurricane - witnesses have testified that the house had collapsed long before water ever showed up.

I'm sure Allstate isn't the only insurer claiming that, because the houses were flooded after they collapsed, the insurer doesn't have to pay up - that's the fun of "flood insurance." What adds insult to injury is that they're screwing this family while exploiting their loss as a crass marketing ploy.

The takeaway is to ensure that your property is covered for water damage, even if you're on top of a damned hill in the middle of the desert.
 
2013-01-09 12:35:44 PM
Insurance companies
Cable companies
Airlines
Banks

The worst companies that always end up in Fark links.
 
2013-01-09 12:35:45 PM

Fizpez:
/although if you do have a fire, smoke and water will do WAY more damage than the actual fire ever did.


i277.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 12:36:06 PM

ringersol: The problem with that? AllStates' competition are all busily doing the same thing to their own customers.
Trying to use this to get press would only cause one of their own wronged customers to stand up and get press.

Then they're out a few hundred grand for a stab at a 'positive' story that's backfired.
And instead of their competitor getting a shiat ton of bad press, driving people to their door *anyway*, now the bad press is (also) on them.


Hmmm. True. However, there's a line between a screwed customer and a screwed customer that you've used to make commercials.

MugzyBrown: Good business plan.. pay out uncovered claim for $250,000, receive $20,000 in new premiums!


Was more thinking of picking up dozens of new policies with this plan, if not BILLIONS.
 
2013-01-09 12:36:41 PM

durbnpoisn: 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.


There's an asshole in this story, but it isnt them.
 
2013-01-09 12:36:56 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.


This. Also, I would like to throw in that not all states require that your car is insured.
 
2013-01-09 12:41:22 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.


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.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:07 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.


You are an idiot. Insurance is not about friends or emotional reactions. It is a legal contract. If you didn't pay for rental coverage they don't have to pay for a rental car for you.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:12 PM

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


yeah, this.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:26 PM
I was tapped by a driver with Allstate. I think there was $350 in damage, and they just about got out the flood light to shine in my eyes when we talked about it.

I have Amica. They don't advertise much. Which is good because their ads are terrible.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:37 PM
My experience with Allstate home insurance has been, well, spotty. At the time of Katrina I owned two residences. I had just moved out of the one and my wife and I had just moved into the other. The first one was fortunately unoccupied and contained no furniture, and had actually been on the market for about a year (no bites). I say fortunately because four large trees fell on the roof, effectively destroying it. Amazingly (or maybe not so much), a buyer appeared within two days of the storm, ready to pay my asking price as long as I got the damage repaired (they were from St. Bernard where just about everything was destroyed). Allstate really dragged their heels on that one; it took three months just to get the adjustor out. He finally did come out, took his good time inspecting the damage, signed the authorization, and the repair contractors (who were waiting in the driveway with all their equipment and materials) started working before he left. Three days later the new residents moved into what was essentially a new house.

Our new residence suffered minor roof damage...miraculously, because we had dozens of trees down, but only one nicked the roof. (The only hole was directly over the sink in the guest bathroom.) The adjustor was out within HOURS, approved a whole new roof, and we were set to go.

Different adjustors, but both Allstate.
 
2013-01-09 12:42:51 PM

The Muthaship: Talk to any lawyer who deals with insurance companies regularly. Ask them which company sucks the most.


From reading a few Fark threads, this also seems to be a local thing,even if you're dealing with a "national" company. Company A will be absolutely evil in one state, and completely above-board in another.
 
2013-01-09 12:43:21 PM

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


And, at least if I'm right, in most/all that do require you to have insurance, even that requirement is waived if you can demonstrate you have enough money to cover any liability you incur yourself. (It may have to be in escrow; I'm not sure.)

But yeah, in some sense the point is not so much that you have insurance as that you have insurance that will cover other people.
 
2013-01-09 12:43:44 PM
Rent Party said it way less drunk than I did.
 
2013-01-09 12:44:09 PM

Fish in a Barrel: Company A will be absolutely evil in one state, and completely above-board in another.


That could be. Here, everything is going to trial. Or, at least the day of.
 
2013-01-09 12:45:54 PM

mjohnson71: DeathCipris: Deja Thread...

They didn't buy flood insurance and live near the water.

I searched Google Maps to see where New Dorp Beach is. According to what they have marked off this couple (at most) lives like 10 or 11 blocks from the ocean.

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


It's even worst than that, Here is a story, about how the same lady, who's lived there 45 years, pleaded with the city for a sea wall.

From the other article, "There was a flood-prevention plan for the area created in 1976, but nothing came of it and was finally defunded in 1986, after a powerful nor'easter swamped the neighborhood, according to a Staten Island Advance article from Dec. 12, 1992."

If she lived there for 45 years, obviously she lived through the 1986 flood, how the hell can you not have flood insurance?
 
2013-01-09 12:46:46 PM
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.
 
2013-01-09 12:47:38 PM

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

And, at least if I'm right, in most/all that do require you to have insurance, even that requirement is waived if you can demonstrate you have enough money to cover any liability you incur yourself. (It may have to be in escrow; I'm not sure.)

But yeah, in some sense the point is not so much that you have insurance as that you have insurance that will cover other people.


Not sure, but it makes sense. Being hit by an uninsured motorist (which is shockingly likely in VA) is an all out war to get your money to repair the vehicle. You end up having to take your insurance company to court to get them to pay for damages since typically the driver at fault pays to fix.
 
2013-01-09 12:48:58 PM
They should get a private adjuster and they should sue for bad faith.

simple enough.
 
2013-01-09 12:49:27 PM
I sorta wish there WAS a requirement to maintain insurance at minimum of liability on a vehicle.
 
2013-01-09 12:49:55 PM

Fizpez: /although if you do have a fire, smoke and water will do WAY more damage than the actual fire ever did.


Depends on the fire...and how quickly the FD responds
 
2013-01-09 12:50:00 PM
Why is everyone surprised to learn that an insurance company will spend more trying to dispute a claim than it would cost to just pay it?

It ain't like this just recently started happening....
 
2013-01-09 12:50:53 PM
I've had Allstate for years. Had to file several claims with them (home and auto). They always paid out promptly, to my satisfaction, and gave a thorough accounting of why they paid what they did. My rates have always been reasonable and affordable.

/I know. I'm not helping.
//I'll just go sit over in the corner.
 
2013-01-09 12:52:06 PM
I would like to throw in that not all states require that your car is insured.

All states that don't require insurance do require that you put up a bond of $50,000+ if you choose not to insure your car. Anyone that can afford to pay the bond likely choose to pay for insurance.
 
2013-01-09 12:52:57 PM
So let's say we all blindly accept the neighbor's claim that the roof was off before the flooding occurred. It seems to me that this statement proves that Allstate is correct to deny the claim. What mystical logic is this you say? Pretty simple really:

If the statement has to be made that the roof was torn off by the wind and not by the flood, then the flood must have reached at least to their roof. The existence (or lack thereof) of a roof when your house is surrounded by 12+ feet of ocean swell is completely irrelevant. The flood damage was caused by the flood, not by the fact that it was raining.
 
2013-01-09 12:53:46 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.


You should have gotten a rental car alright, but not from your insurance company.  That should have come from the insurance company who wrote the policy of the guy that hit you.  They are the ones with a duty to make you whole, and that should include rental wheels when you have none because of the actions of their driver.  The rantal car rider on you policy ismuch like your collision insurance-there to pay off when YOU are at fault
 
2013-01-09 12:57:52 PM
The only two decent insurance companies are Chubb and Amica. Had one, now have the other.

Allstate in particular is bad. They of the infamous McKinsey consulting report that suggested flat out that Allstate increases its profits by purposely screwing their insureds.
 
2013-01-09 01:00:19 PM

Belias: So let's say we all blindly accept the neighbor's claim that the roof was off before the flooding occurred. It seems to me that this statement proves that Allstate is correct to deny the claim. What mystical logic is this you say? Pretty simple really:

If the statement has to be made that the roof was torn off by the wind and not by the flood, then the flood must have reached at least to their roof. The existence (or lack thereof) of a roof when your house is surrounded by 12+ feet of ocean swell is completely irrelevant. The flood damage was caused by the flood, not by the fact that it was raining.


Um, no? If storm surge knocks down your walls, do you think the roof is just going to float in the air?

And water doesn't need to be up to the roof to knock over the walls. The storm surge knocking down the walls seems to be Allstate's theory; the wind lifting off the roof then knocking down the walls seems to be the homeowner's theory.
 
2013-01-09 01:01:07 PM

Wookie_Jesus: Rent Party said it way less drunk than I did.


I'm way more drunk than you are.
 
2013-01-09 01:01:54 PM
Allstate sucks. I've dealt with two different agents here in town - both very unethical, so I switched to a different company years ago. I have never recommended Allstate, and make it a point to tell people of my experiences who have it.
 
2013-01-09 01:04:18 PM
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.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:00 PM

Belias: So let's say we all blindly accept the neighbor's claim that the roof was off before the flooding occurred. It seems to me that this statement proves that Allstate is correct to deny the claim. What mystical logic is this you say? Pretty simple really:

If the statement has to be made that the roof was torn off by the wind and not by the flood, then the flood must have reached at least to their roof. The existence (or lack thereof) of a roof when your house is surrounded by 12+ feet of ocean swell is completely irrelevant. The flood damage was caused by the flood, not by the fact that it was raining.



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.
 
2013-01-09 01:05:16 PM

Fish in a Barrel: From reading a few Fark threads, this also seems to be a local thing,even if you're dealing with a "national" company. Company A will be absolutely evil in one state, and completely above-board in another.


this.

I was riding a bicycle in a bicycle lane, wearing reflective stuff, during the day, when a person ran a stop sign and hit me from the side. They were going 40. My bicycle was a twisted mess - and so was I. Shut down a busy street (Genese) in San Diego for over an hour. Serious concussion, lost a lot of skin, back was screwed up, neck was screwed up, etc. The driver's insurance company - which, as it so happens, was in fact allstate - balked at simply paying my medical bills and buying me a new bicycle. I was...shocked. I had such an open/shut case, I didn't understand. I was moving across the country literally 2 weeks after the accident though, and decided I'd just take care of that first, then deal with allstate. So, had movers pack up our stuff (couldn't move it myself anymore, injured) and moved from San Diego to Ithaca, NY. Few days later I called allstate, they rerouted my claim to a NY person. That person called me about 15 minutes later, and asked when I was available to talk in person. Told him I was just unpacking for the forseeable future, and he said he'd be there in an hour. He was 10 minutes early, but waited in his car and knocked on the door right at the hour.

Told him what happened. Showed him my bills, what the doctors thought I'd need, showed him the pictures of the remains of my bike. It had only been a few weeks, so I was still missing the skin on my right arm (like...a lot of it), my left leg, and the left side of my face. I looked like I hurt, and...as it so happened, I did in fact hurt. Then, I told him what I had asked for from the allstate person in SD. His eyes got huge - then he opened up a checkbook ledger thing, wrote me a check for all the damages right there, then added $5k for "pain and suffering," told me I had a black check for medical expenses - gave me that in writing, and then told me he wouldn't let me write away their liability in the situation. He even said that the SD allstate people were taking a huge risk, because with lawyers I could get a lot - told him I knew I could, but that I just didn't care to game a bad situation like that.

So yeah, depends on the area, the office, etc. They may be national, but they are silos.
 
2013-01-09 01:06:06 PM

DoctorOfLove: The only two decent insurance companies are Chubb and Amica. Had one, now have the other.

Allstate in particular is bad. They of the infamous McKinsey consulting report that suggested flat out that Allstate increases its profits by purposely screwing their insureds.


I've been very happy with StateFarm. I've filed three major claims in about a decade with them (my apartment was robbed, hail damage to the roof and siding of my house, I rear-ended someone on the interstate). They paid in full all three times, and they did so quickly. When I had hail damage, I told the adjuster that I had looked at the roof and thought it was fine. He checked anyhow, schooled me on how to spot hail damage on shingles, and then got me a new roof. When I totaled my car, they paid me about $1,500 more than the car was selling for anywhere.
 
2013-01-09 01:06:53 PM
My car got hit by someone with Allstate. They paid the repair bill immediately, because they had some sort of agreement with the repair shop we used. Therefore they are a great company and not across-the-board assholes.

/cab
//cool anecdote, bro
 
2013-01-09 01:08:33 PM

MugzyBrown: Satanic_Hamster: Here's my suggestion:
ATTENTION ALLSATES BIGGEST COMPETITOR IN THAT MARKET.

Go to these people. Fix their house. Get them to switch to you. Then pay them to be spokespeople for you.

Good business plan.. pay out uncovered claim for $250,000, receive $20,000 in new premiums!


Wow, you really are a master of advertisement. Seriously, how much does it cost to hire you to do my advertising.
 
2013-01-09 01:08:47 PM
wheresmysammich.com

State Insurance Commission and go on Fox News!
 
2013-01-09 01:09:02 PM

evaned: And water doesn't need to be up to the roof to knock over the walls. The storm surge knocking down the walls seems to be Allstate's theory; the wind lifting off the roof then knocking down the walls seems to be the homeowner's theory.


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.
 
2013-01-09 01:09:42 PM
$10,000 Covers the roof, which was certainly damaged by the wind. The rest of the house...
 
2013-01-09 01:11:16 PM

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


Or the fist in the anal canal.

Anyone who uses Allstate or Farmers for any insurance is a masochistic moron.
 
2013-01-09 01:12:07 PM

HAMMERTOE: $10,000 Covers the roof, which was certainly damaged by the wind. The rest of the house...


Exactly. I can't really fault Allstate, as much as I'd like to blame to evil Insurance people.
 
2013-01-09 01:12:07 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?


Because of the way the homeowners insurance risk pool works in NJ, some homeowners insurance companies are required to charge additional fee's to homeowners for 'flood insurance' when they are not near a floodplain or the shore to cover the idiots who do live in flood prone areas who refuse to get flood insurance.
 
2013-01-09 01:12:39 PM

Raw_fishFood: Gee, you think with all the negative publicity they are getting from this, they'd say, "Oh, our bad, our initial claims of flood damages were incorrect blah blah blah anyways here's the full amount you were covered for."

But I guess I just don't think like a business man con artist.


fixed.
 
2013-01-09 01:12:58 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.


Bingo. And that's exactly why Americans want insurance companies to run their health care. Wait...
 
2013-01-09 01:12:59 PM
Was the Obvious tag busy filing a claim?
 
2013-01-09 01:13:51 PM

trucktrash: Fizpez:
/although if you do have a fire, smoke and water will do WAY more damage than the actual fire ever did.

[i277.photobucket.com image 423x366]

Posting funny cartoons when you don't know what the hell you're talking about doesnt make you any smarter either. A house fire typically damages a relatively small area of the house, assuming you live anywhere near a fire department it is extremely unlikely you will even have to replace wall studs. When the firefighters cut through the roof to vent the house they will do significant amounts (money) of damage. The smoke will likely require you to replace almost all furniture in the house and the water from the hoses will require you replace most of the flooring materials in the area where the fire was contained. In terms of dollars the smoke and water almost always do more damage than the actual fire.
 
2013-01-09 01:13:53 PM

evaned: And water doesn't need to be up to the roof to knock over the walls. The storm surge knocking down the walls seems to be Allstate's theory; the wind lifting off the roof then knocking down the walls seems to be the homeowner's theory.


And which of these is more plausible? Lemme grab some chicken wire and a couple cinder blocks and figure it out.
 
2013-01-09 01:17:29 PM

durbnpoisn: 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.



Did you ask at McDonalds? Or your local grocery store? Because you also didn't pay them for a rental car, so I'm assuming you think they owe you one too.
 
2013-01-09 01:19:04 PM

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.
 
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?
 
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 171 of 171 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report