Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (704080)	9/26/2005 6:48:31 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

It'll never fly. Uncle Sam shouldn't provide subsidized flood insurance either....

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (704080)	9/26/2005 6:59:34 PM
From: Kenneth E. Phillipps	Respond to of 769670

The court can refuse to enforce a contractual provision which is against public policy. If the court finds those exclusions for flood damage to be against the public policy of the state of LA, the court can strike them down.

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (704080)	9/27/2005 7:03:42 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

OK, here is the way I understand flood insurance; First, nearly EVERYONE has A MORTGAGE and if you live in a FLOOD PLAIN determined by engineers a mortgage lender REQUIRES you to have flood insurance. Second, WIND DRIVEN WATER is NOT A FLOOD and is supposed to be covered. Thus it APPEARS to me that a number of insurance companies are TRYING to get out of paying for WIND DRIVEN WATER claims saying it was a FLOOD. IMHO this was wind driven water, and if it was a flood then they people should not have been flooded out unless they were in a flood plain. So, for now at least I side with the attorney general of Mississippi, which by the way had LITTLE RAIN. jdn