Matador275 wrote:
CD,
Although you are using common-sense here, insurance companies traditionally play hooky when the time comes to pay up. While working in NOLA, about two weeks after Katrina hit, during Rita, I was in constant contact with the locals. Almost all of NOPD, most of the FD and EMS and regular City Workers. Of course being at the head FEMA site in NOLA, the JFO, I got to see a lot of moving pieces.
There is a lot to be said about the leadership of the City and the State. In my opinion, most of them are corrupt, despicable low-life's. They didn't care about the people there, fully realizing what was coming their way. The majority of the people living in the area that got hit worst, are equally slow mentally. It almost reminds me of the "Insh'allah" mentality.
However, to get to the point, a lot of people did get screwed - by the insurance companies. They did purchase flood insurance, fire insurance etc. The insurance companies, now faced with a gigantic payback are clinging on to every single cent. In the process, there is more fraud. Yes I said fraud. From them towards the people who honestly paid into the policies. They know perfectly well, that someone who has just had their home wiped out, with very little financial resources and probably a below nationwide pay, cannot afford to go into a prolonged legal battle with them.
Insurance companies are scum. They take your money when you have to pay right then and there, or they send you to collections, legal action follows etc. But when the time comes to pay, they take as long as they can and they will do their best not to pay you what they legally owe, if they know they can get away with it.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, however offensive I may find them. BeforeI make another comment, let me make it clear that I am not a licensed insurance professional in the state of LA, so I am not qualified to talk about the specifics. Further, I have not personally been to LA in the aftermath of the damage.
Having said that, I could not disagree more with your comments. The situation with the damage from Katrina and who is obligated to pay what is obviously a huge goat fuck of mammoth proportions. I don't doubt that for one minute. But don't let anyone out there fool you into thinking that the insurance companies can get away with whatever they would like to do. Any insurance policy is a legal contract, and the insurance company is held to that contract just as the insured is. The only problem is that far too many consumers purchase an insurance policy, and never take the time to read the contract and familiarize themselves with the provisions of that contract. Then, when a loss occurs, and the assumtions they had about what they were paying for did not come to fruition, it is everyone else's fault. I see it nearly every single day of my professional life.
Moreover, this matter is further complicated because of the catstrophic nature of the loss. Insurance companies don't have bottomless coffers of cash like some think they do. It is a complicated industry, and it can be very difficult to remain solvent, much less make a profit, at times. Therfore, insurance companies must buy insurance of their own, called re-insurance, to protect them from bankruptcy as a result of a catastrophic loss, such as Katrina. So, the re-insurers are involved here as well, which will slow the process down some. You may recall the fiasco on the news post 9/11 when the devlopers of the WTC were fighting a legal battle with the re-insurers over whether or not the towers coming down was considered one occurence or two. It took time. But, because the developers were trying to get double the money. They lost in court, and the claim was paid.
The point here is this; is NO a goat fuck? I am sure it is. Is it all the "scum" insurance companies faults, because they only want to cheat their customers? Fuck no.
I have a Ranger Buddy whose new home was destroyed in NO. He was located close to one of the levees that broke. The only way I could contact him was by text message on cell phones for a week or more. By the time I had good comms with him, he had already received his first check from his insurance carrier for loss of use so he could start the process of getting back on his feet. He was properly insured with flood coverage. Keep in mind here that flood insurance is subsidized by the federal government. The fact is that a lot of people were getting their claims settled before the fucking cell service was even back up. Of the ones who were not, I would look to whether or not they had the coverage at all before I would start pointing fingers and the insurance companies.
So, you have a loss that is going to cost more dollars to repaire than the 9/11 attacks. Some had a homowner's policy. Some had homewner's policies AND flood policies. Some had no insurance at all. You have private insurance companies. You have international re-insurance companies. You have governmental agencies such as FEMA etc.. You have a largely corrupt local and state government heading for the high ground. You have a declared national disaster area and the follow on money that entails. You have all of these variables into play, but I am supposed to believe that the people in the inner city, who we all saw on TV pillaging the stores after the storm, accepting the FEMA money and spending it in casinos, raising Hell on CNN blaming everybody but the Pope for their failure to take personal action, on and on and on, actually paid for a flood policy and are being taken advantage of by a private insurance company? I say bull-fucking-shit on that, Brother. I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. I am also equally as certain that there cannot be a single insured in the area that does not have a valid argument against an insurance company. There almost has got to be. But that does not mean that the insurance company is crooked. There are too many vairables in play that have not settled yet, and too many legal questions that have still got to be answered before a lot of the claims can be determined valid and paid, or fraudulent and denied. Any CEO worth a fucking dime is gonna take extra precautions in a catastrophic loss such as this to keep fraud to a minimum.
But forget about all of the complexities of this particular situation. In its most simple state, most of the friction I see between insureds and insurers is that people think that if they pay a premium, their problems will be solved in the event of a loss no matter what, and they could not be more wrong. They have entered into a legal contract of their own free will, and many don't even take the Goddamn time to read the motherfucking thing. How fucking stupid is that? How many time have you signed a contract and didn't read it?
Some of the best people I have ever met (speaking of non-Ranger civvies) work for insurance companies that I represent. They hold positions from one of the Board of directors, CEO, Pres. marketting reps, underwriters, claims associates, all the way down to CSRs, and they all KNOW that NO insurance company gains success by doing people wrong. That doesn't mean some claims don't get denied. The ones that should be denied ARE denied,
but only if there is no coverage for that particular loss in accordance with the terms of the legal contract, of which the insured is always given a copy, and can choose to accept those terms or refuse to do business with the company.
You said insurance companies are scum. I feed my family in the insurance industry. I put my family name and reputation, and all that that entails behind every single policy I write, with multitudes of insurance companies. Does that make me scum as well by association? There is another well respected person on this board who is an insurance professional too. Does he fall into the same category as well?
I think you are painting with an awfully broad brush, Brother, given the complexity to the situation and all of the variables that are still in play.
