We had a local weather newscaster here in the Detroit area and she moved with her children to MS to be closer to her Naval Officer husband. Her parents moved with her and built right down the street from them to help her out when he is out to sea. Her old news station has been following her story since the hurricane, well her brand new house and her parents was totally destroyed. The problem her insurance company declined the claim!! Why would this happen? They didn't go into that on the news and I've been wondering. Don't you have to have adequate insurance when you live in those areas? I know I live a few blocks from a creek and am forced to have flood insurance that I can't get out of along with the regular homeowners. If you have a mortgage on a house aren't you supposed to have needed insurance to cover replacement costs? Just wondering.

By Pamt on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 09:14 am:

Yes, but sometimes (depending on where you live) you may have an exclusion of hurricanes unless you tacked on hurricane coverage. I have also heard of several people being denied b/c their house was flooded--they had flood insurance, but since it wasn't *just* flooding, but flooding as the result of the hurricane that it's not being covered. I have a friend who manages a State Farm office and she said that if you lose a tree to a hurricane then it is not covered, but if the tree gets struck by lightening it is. It all depends a lot on specifically where you live and what your policy says. Insurance is a very tricky thing! I hope she can get compensated somehow.

By Karen~moderator on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 10:54 am:

Ditto Pam, and the big question is did she also have flood insurance? Homeowners will NOT cover flood damages, period. And another thing that many people don't know is, you have to get CONTENTS coverage on your flood policy or your contents will not be covered if they are damaged/ruined due to flood, even if your dwelling is. And yes, you *should* have insurance to cover both your dwelling and it's contents, but many people make assumptions and don't have the proper coverage, and they neglect to increase their coverage as the value of their home and contents increases.

By Karen~moderator on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 10:55 am:

Another thing, not all policies cover replacement cost - some depreciate and pay based on depreciated value. IMO, everyone should review their policies annually and make sure they have the coverage they need.

By Bemerry84 on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 12:37 pm:

I know they are playing this up because she was from here originally. What amazes me is that these are people of means with educations and good jobs and you would think that they would have had all those insurance needs taken care of. Correct me if I am wrong, but if you live near water isn't flood insurance required? This creek I live by hasn't ever flooded to my knowledge and the maps are very old. When we first bought we didn't have to have the insurance, we are in a Zone X but 3 years ago we got letters and were forced to get it. I know you can file for a LOMA letter to get out of it but that requires a special survey which is expensive and you could take a long time to get through and you could be denied so I just pay the yearly premium. Is this happening to a lot of people? I'm digging up my policies and making sure we are covered, even though in MI we really don't have bad weather. I could not survive if that happened to us.

By Crystal915 on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 01:38 pm:

A reminder to all military families, USAA has very complete coverage. For our renter's insurance I was surprised at how much was covered for very little $, and they do cash replacement value for your items. Insurance is such a PITA, I can't imagine having your insurance deny the hurricane claims!

By Jann on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 03:51 pm:

If you don't live within a 100 year flood plain, you aren't required to get flood insurance even if it's near water. To assume that someone is being irresponsible because they don't have flood insurance isn't really fair. I bet you would be surprised how little your homeowners acutally covers..and all the loops holes there are in it. Insurance companies are in the business to make money not pay claims.

By Karen~moderator on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 07:20 pm:

Flood insurance is not required in my subdivision because we are 11 feet - yes, that is *only* 11 feet above sea level here. Less than a mile down the River Road is a more *upscale* subdivision with many large, expensive homes. Most of those homes have flooded 1 to 3 times in the past 12 years or so. It's less than a mile away, but is in a different flood zone.

We carry flood insurance anyway, however. No sense taking a chance of losing it all. We are 1/2 a block off the Mississippi River. You'd think flood insurance would be required where we are but it's not.

By Pamt on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 07:24 pm:

We have several bayous, creeks, and rivers within miles, but not really *near* us. We are not in a flood zone and don't carry flood insurance. We looked at a couple of houses that required flood insurance, but if it was required we automatically marked the house off our list.

By Karen~moderator on Saturday, October 1, 2005 - 09:06 am:

But Pam, doesn't it worry you not carrying it? I didn't have it for years, I thought it was *too expensive*. It's less than $275 a year, and mine includes contents coverage.

I'd do the same thing as you did though, I certainly wouldn't buy a house in the metro N.O. area that had previously flooded. Which is sad, because a great percentage of homes in Jefferson and Orleans have flooded now.

By Momofmax on Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 01:41 am:

I live less than 15 miles from an area that was COMPLETELY put underwater by hurricane Katrina and I'm also a few blocks from the Mississippi River and I am not required to have flood insurance. My subdivision has never flooded but I'm too chicken not to carry flood insurance. As Karen said, it's less than $300/year for that bit of peace of mind. Insurance is tricky. I know lots of people are fighting the wind/water (what caused the damage, wind or rising water?) fight right now, as well as the mold issue. Most homeowners policies don't cover toxic mold but because evacuees were kept from reentering their homes and cleaning up before mold began to grow they are fighting this issue.

By Ginny~moderator on Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 07:17 am:

The insurance commissions in the affected states - Louisiana, Mississipi and Texas particularly, are watching the insurance companies with hawk eyes right now because so many claims are being rejected. And I suggest the local weathercaster, because she is associated with a news agency and her "story" will be right up there at every step, will probably get a decision that she and her parents are covered, after some investigation. But yes, review your policy every year, and if you don't understand it, call. I did that recently because I pay for sewer/sump pump backup, and I just learned that this only pays $5,000, with a $1,000 deductible (I carry a $1,000 deductible generally, to keep rates down). A few years ago I switched from State Farm because they dropped "replacement value" coverage. Having had a burglary when I didn't know the difference, and having my stolen possessions depreciated down to next to nothing, I am not going to carry anything other than replacement value coverage for my contents ever again. And I am looking into flood insurance, even though I'm not in a flood area, because we have a high water table here.

By Karen~moderator on Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 09:45 am:

As I understand it, when rising water from ground level causes damage or destruction to a structure, FLOOD is the reason and FLOOD insurance is responsible for the cost. HOWEVER, if wind blows your roof off, or blows a tree down on your roof and it rips open, or blows your windows or a side of your building out and water enters the dwelling through either of those avenues, then homeowner's is responsible.

BUT - in cases where there were both types of damage, I can imagine it's a slippery slope where insurance companies are concerned. Naturally, the flood underwriters want to lay it on the homeowners underwriters and vice versa. In fairness, they should just split the cost, IMO, but who ever said they were fair???

This is really the reason you should have both homeowners AND flood insurance in a hurricane-prone area. Granted, for many of us, the chances are slim that we will actually receive that devastating damage from a hurricane, but for me, it's not worth the risk.

Another thing, in south LA, we get tropical storm type rains throughout the year, and depending on how slow those weather systems are moving we could, and have, received up to 24" to 30" of rain in a 24-36 hour period JUST FROM A FRONT COMING THROUGH, which has flooded many, many neighborhoods. If you don't have flood insrance, you are outta luck!

If you know someone who was affected by hurricane Katrina,whose home flooded AND they had structural damage as I mentioned above, they should, by all means appeal and contest, because the flood and homeowners underwriters should compromise and find a happy medium to settle the claim.

And another thing - they should write letters to both insurers and sent copies to their governor, local elected officials, and congressmen and senators, as well as the insurance commissioner. I can assure you, it will make a difference - I did it with FEMA and I was approved and I got my money within a few days after doing that. Actually, the day after I did that, I was contacted by phone by one of the officials and told they were investigating and refiling my app, and 4 days later I had the money, and 2 days after that the same official followed up with a phone call.

Anyone who has sustained catastrophic damage and has been denied can appeal or contest those decisions, and I'd be willing to bet if they are proactive and aggressive, they will get at LEAST partial compensation and satisfaction.

By Karen~moderator on Sunday, October 2, 2005 - 10:06 am:

And as for the mold issue - I too was wondering about how that was going to be handled. My homeowners insurance (as well as most others') now has an exclusion for mold, but all of these places that had water in them for days or weeks, and were in areas where NO ONE was allowed in, OBVIOUSLY have mold damage EVERYWHERE. It was unavoidable, the people were NOT ALLOWED back in, therefore there was nothing they could do, and these are extenuating circumstances.

It's not like they had a roof leak, ignored the problem and mold began to grow. I am sure the homeowners will deny claims for mold damage, because they CAN.

On our local news and in the local newspaper, there are many stories showing the mold damage, some have all of the wall and ceiling surfaces covered in mold, and you *know* the A/C and heating ductwork is probably affected too. These people are trying to spray bleach on the molded walls and ceilings to kill it. Come on, there is NO way they are going to kill all the mold in those buildings! It's everywhere, in cracks and crevices where they don't see it and will not get to it. So obviously, it will continue to grow and spread. And cause illness and health problems and further damage in the future.

I realize this is expensive for insurers and also personally for those affected, but come on, the insurers HAVE to know there was NOTHING that could be done to prevent this, and IMO, they should gut those places and rebuild. Just my opinion though, and unless you push it to the limit, odds are that won't happen.