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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They should get a private adjuster and they should sue for bad faith.

simple enough.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Well, it looks like getting the "Good Hands", they just got the finger.