Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: george76

Ha! We'll see about that.


2 posted on 09/21/2005 10:02:55 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Texas Eagle

May I presume from your comment that you agree that the insurance company should pay for damage specifically excluded from the policy?


9 posted on 09/21/2005 10:06:03 AM PDT by Ben Mugged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Eagle

Nor should they.


13 posted on 09/21/2005 10:06:44 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Eagle

IMO, hard to see how Mississippi can win that suit - looks to me the state is trying to jawbone the insurers into more generous payoff under the provisions that do apply (or perhaps that a politician is jsut playing to the voters) also looks like Allstate at least in not gonna' play ball.


41 posted on 09/21/2005 10:14:42 AM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Eagle; george76

What's the issue? If they didn't buy the supplemental, then they are out of luck. Am I out of line with that thinking?


42 posted on 09/21/2005 10:14:43 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Eagle
Ha! We'll see about that.

This is really simple,if the policies in question specifically state that "flood" (my word) damage isn't covered,then that's it.My understanding is that most,if not all,standard homeowner's policies deny coverage for "flood" (again,my word) damage,just as they do with earthquake damage(unless you pay extra and get a rider).

And,BTW...are you the same "Texas Eagle" who once posted to the Fox News Sunday board and was once on Rush's show?

50 posted on 09/21/2005 10:17:16 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Eagle

Good for Allstate!


140 posted on 09/21/2005 11:17:20 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Texas Eagle

We'll see about that???? Although this suit may make it past the local level as a Mississippi jury will vote with the hearts and not their heads, this will never make it past the Appellate or the Supreme court levels. This is because the judges at these levels will have to rule on contract law and the intent of the the flood exclusion. Yes we feel terrible for the folks that aren't covered for flood, but they should take responsibility for not covering themselves. Why is everyone acting so entitled?? Please take responsibility for your choices in life!! There is no intent to cover flood (no matter what the cause) under a private homeowner policy- hence the need for the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program). There are many reasons why we have the NFIP- one being Flood is too catastrophic for insurance companies to insure. No one could afford homeowner policies if flood coverage was provided. A good example of this is the separate wind policy sold by the state of Florida- too catastrophic for an insurance company to insure. This suit, if won by the plaintiff's, would be the worst thing for Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama because insurance rates would skyrocket, and ultimately, most insurance companies would leave these states. Then what?? No one can force a private insurance company to sell in a state!


186 posted on 10/09/2005 10:16:02 AM PDT by Commonsense999 (Commonsense999)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson