Posted on 12/16/2005 5:26:16 AM PST by bessay
You're quite possibly right about that....I've never had to write one for someone without a mortgage - but I don't know why you would buy a house in a flood zone, no mortgage, and not bother with the flood insurance. (unless you could replace your whole house!)
It's called "self-insured." One would presume that you COULD replace your house, but I suppose some can't.
I agree that retroactive laws are bad, but I'm not sure that they are unconstitutional. Wasn't Clinton's tax hike retroactive?
An insurance company not paying for a non-existant policy is not a "technicality". Why not sue Burger King, Toyota and IBM to rebuild the flood damaged homes? It makes just as much as sense since no one had flood insurance with them either.
The insurance companies were burned after Hugo - a lot of customers with home owners policies did not know that flooding from storm surge was only covered under flood insurance. Even though the home owners policies excluded storm surge, the courts felt the language was not explicit or clear enough so they lost a lot of cases and had to provide coverage for policies that they never received a premium on.
After that debacle, the insurance industry changed the language in the policies to make it very explicit and clear that storm surge was considered flooding and would only be covered with a flood insurance policy.
It's not the responsibility of the shareholders of the insurance companies to suffer because someone in Gulf made a bad decision. A hurricane is not a 9/11 type totally unforeseeable event - they happen all the time in the Gulf.
I think the "required" part may be confusing to some people. I think that you meant that lenders will only require a borrower to purchase flood insurance if the property is in a flood plain. If there is no mortgage, a person isn't required to buy any type of insurance.
I think there is a lot of confusion in this threads about flood insurance. This is what I've gathered from asking questions and following the threads.
(1) - flood insurance is available to everyone
(2) - flood insurance underwritten by the government is capped at $250,000
(3) - additional flood insurance can be purchased through insurance companies
(4) - properties that are mortgaged will be required to have flood insurance if it is in a flood plain
I was under the impression, though, that government underwritten flood insurance was only available if the property was in a flood plain.
One question I have is, why did so many people on the coast not have flood insurance? Is it because many homes did not have a mortgage or because the storm surge went beyond the designated flood plain?
The insurance companies charge for the coverage but have loop holes for almost everything when it comes to paying off for what people think they were paying for.
Retroactive insurance would still be unfair, IMHO.
Like I posted yesterday, when it comes to the area of big corporations and the free market, a significant number of freepers are ideological different than democrats.
Companies in the insurance, pharmaceutical and oil industries are routinely attacked. I imagine it is because these industries invoke a lot emotion of out people and when you need them, it can be disheartening that they have to operate as a business.
It makes them seem "cold", but they have to operate as a business or they would be out of business and then no one would have insurance, medicine or gasoline.
Opps...the above should be.. "Like I posted yesterday, when it comes to the area of big corporations and the free market, a significant number of freepers are not ideological different than democrats."
Well, given the statement below regarding the decision in the case Calder v. Bull, you may be right.... a "Flood Insurance" bill such as described here may be allowed after all. I was not aware of this case and still not quite sure how they managed to arrive at this interpretation of what is otherwise very clear language but.... stranger decisions have been handed down...
So, I stand corrected.... I guess ex post facto laws ARE in fact constitutional so long as they're entirely civil in nature. Seems wrong, but apparently the Supremes ruled on this a long time ago.
Can't help but wonder if Calder v. Bull has ever been challenged and if so what they had to say about it.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3
'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.'
Ex post facto -- What does it mean? Where does it fit?
Ex post facto
- Latin for "from a thing done afterward." Ex post facto is most typically used to refer to a law that applies retroactively, thereby criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally performed. Two clauses in the US Constitution prohibit ex post facto laws: Art 1, § 9 and Art. 1 § 10. see, e.g. Collins v. Youngblood 497 US 37 (1990) and California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales 514 US 499 (1995).
Definition .--At the time the Constitution was adopted, many persons understood the term ex post facto laws to ''embrace all retrospective laws, or laws governing or controlling past transactions, whether . . . of a civil or a criminal nature.'' 1722 But in the early case of Calder v. Bull, 1723 the Supreme Court decided that the phrase, as used in the Constitution, applied only to penal and criminal statutes. But although it is inapplicable to retroactive legislation of any other kind, 1724 the constitutional prohibition may not be evaded by giving a civil form to a measure that is essentially criminal. 1725 Every law, which makes criminal an act that was innocent when done, or which inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed, is an ex post facto law within the prohibition of the Constitution. 1726 A prosecution under a temporary statute, which was extended before the date originally set for its expiration, does not offend this provision even though it is instituted subsequent to the extension of the statute's duration for a violation committed prior thereto. 1727 Since this provision has no application to crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country, it is immaterial in extradition proceedings whether the foreign law is ex post facto or not. 1728
Well, given the statement below regarding the decision of Calder v. Bull, you may be right.... a "Flood Insurance" bill such as described here may be allowed after all.
Cheers,
Lloyd
Figures that the non fine print reading butthead like Lott would sponsor this.
Thanks for the correction. Where I live, if my house flooded it would have to be a pretty big flood, so I was unaware.
It still seems you could say that because the insurance is required some places, and not others, that someone made a determination about the chance of a flood, which might confuse people who don't live in a designated flood plain to think insurance isn't necessary.
I'm not trying to excuse people, just noting that when government gets involved in stuff, people start thinking they are "taking care" of everything.
BTTT.
Unbelievable
Outrageous is right. The insurance companies will fight this tooth and nail and they should. What the heck is wrong with Lott, trying to pull a stunt like that.
I saw Lott on with Chrissy Matthews last night...and when asked if he had homeowners insurance w/flood insurance, he kind of hemmed and hawed...and I wondered why...
NOW I know why....
BTW...I am sick of hearing about poor Lott's house being lost...he is making WAY too much of it for sympathy.
Yes, he is.
In front of a jury that will ALL benefit if they rule for Lott.
Wouldn't we all like to buy our insurance this way? After the fact, when we need it.
Yes, they can. ANYBODY can buy flood insurance. ANYBODY.
He did have flood insurance. The maximum allowed is $250,000. His house was worth a lot more. What damage was a result of wind? Who knows! The surge wiped away all the evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.