By Mark Goldwich
Nile Crocodile courtesy of simpsonstreetfreepress.org |
There’s an old joke:
“Denial is more than just the name of a river in Egypt.” For consumers of
property insurance the joke has a cruel, updated variation: Denial is the name
of a strategy insurance companies seem to use to avoid paying for the damage caused by rivers (among many other things).
In this blog, we’ll see
how surprisingly indifferent the insurance industry is to a big problem –
namely, that so many consumers believe, wrongly, either a) that their policies protect
them against damage from floods, or b) that their property is not at a
significant risk for flood damage. Before we go any further, please understand
one very important thing: Insurance companies don’t pay flood claims..
In case you just fell down
from shock, and are now returning to consciousness with limited capacity, let
me say it once again. Insurance companies do not pay for flood claims. Flood claims
are ultimately paid by the Federal Government.
If you have flood
insurance, that’s who you really bought it from: the government. The insurance
companies simply adjust the losses. The handling standards are strict, and if
the insurance companies mess up (i.e., overpay), they have to pay the money
they overpaid policyholders back to Uncle Sam. (This leads us to an interesting
side question: If the insurance company is going to err on a flood claim, can
you guess which way they are going to lean?)
This situation is
something that should concern you, since the reality of damage from flooding is
looking like something more of us are going to have to prepare for in the
coming
years. According to the web site World
View of Global Warming, “Meteorologists already see an increase in
severity of storms, rainfall, and floods …” They go on to observe that “These
anomalies from what we think is ‘normal’ are expected to continue around the
world.”
Regardless of your stance
on global warming (and its potential causes), regardless of what you believe,
or don’t believe, about natural weather cycles, the moral of the story is the
same: Think. If you think
you’re not likely to be affected by a flood … think again. If you think your
homeowner’s policy covers you against flood damage … think again. I
have personally witnessed
the tragedy of property owners being without flood insurance. You don’t want
any part of it.
Q&A:
If I was
told by someone I trust that I didn’t need flood insurance, doesn’t that pretty
much end the discussion?
No. People are told all the
time -- by insurance companies, attorneys, or occasionally by representatives
of mortgage companies or other “experts” -- that they have no need for flood
insurance. All too often, this advice is simply incorrect. Sometimes what they say
(or mean to say) is, “You are
not required to carry flood insurance.”
That is not the same as you not
needing it.
• How would that bad
advice affect me?
Let’s say that your home
is covered for wind damage, but not covered
sufficiently for flood damage – because some “expert” told you that it wasn’t
‘required’, because you didn’t buy the right level of coverage, or because you
thought, incorrectly, that flood damage was included in your homeowners’
policy. And let’s say a hurricane tears
through your neighborhood. Let’s say that the wind from the hurricane rips the
roof off your house – followed, of course, by torrential rain, and then by a
flood. (That’s the sequence of events we all remember from Hurricane Katrina in
2005.)
When your insurance
company reviews the claim, it’s quite possible that it could deny all payment,
on the argument that the damage to your house was caused, not by wind, but by
flood.
• What if I’ve got an
eyewitness who will swear that he saw the wind rip the roof off my house. Is it
still possible that the insurance company could deny my claim
for wind
damage?
Yes.
• Is that a
hypothetical example, or is this something you actually know for sure that
someone has experienced?
It’s not hypothetical. It
actually happened to a neighbor of one of my clients. The existence of the
eyewitness made no difference whatsoever to the insurance company’s decision. Again the best policy is to consider the
insurance company your adversary.
Ponder that example for a
minute. What are the odds against someone actually seeing your roof get torn off, before the floods come? Yet for
some companies, that’s still not enough!
• What exactly do
insurance companies expect to get as proof of wind damage? Well, my personal view is that they don’t
really want to see evidence in
this situation. It’s not like they launch a huge investigation to find out
exactly what took place in your neighborhood: “Hmm … you appear to have a point
here, Mr. Policyholder. Let’s get to the bottom of this. Was it wind, or was it
water? XYZ Insurance has an obligation to set the record straight once and for
all!” That’s not the kind of discussion you’re going to hear.
For the purposes of
establishing their own responsibility (or lack of responsibility) for wind
damages, the insurance
companies appear to expect
homeowners to have video cameras trained on their homes twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week, so as to record actual damage from windstorms as that damage occurs. As a practical
matter, that’s about what you would have to be prepared to provide them. If you
don’t have tangible proof of
this kind – proof demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt the precise nature
of the damage your property sustained – then it’s entirely possible that the insurance
company could choose to deny your claim. In the aftermath of a hurricane,
they’re likely to insist that water caused the damage in question, not wind …
when they’re talking to people who don’t have flood insurance.
• Is that kind of
nitpicking out of line?
The attorney general of
the state of Mississippi seemed to think so. In the afterma
th of Hurricane
Katrina, he took insurance companies to court. In Mississippi (and indeed in
many other corners of our nation), it seems that a huge number of homeowners don’t
have, or can’t get, adequate flood insurance on their homes, and are thus
ill-equipped to respond to the denial games that insurance companies play after
major natural disasters.
More denial next time…
Mark Goldwich is president of Gold Star
Adjusters, a group of public insurance adjusters dedicated to
helping citizens get the maximum settlement for any insurance claim.
Watch out for those Nile crocs. They look hungry.
ReplyDeleteLots of people were in denial when Katrina hit New Orleans and the same is true for the hurricanes that hit south Florida several years ago. The problem was so bad that many just walked away for their homes.
ReplyDeleteSuper informative! When I lived at the beach a few years ago, several insurance companies gave me the run around about insurance. What was most confusing, and aggravating, was that i was required to have flood insurance by property management, and yet no one would give me flood insurance due to being so close to the water.
ReplyDelete