Insurance Business forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Insurance Business | 08 Sep 2017, 07:02 PM Agree 0
Harvey was the most economically significant natural catastrophe in American history, says Deloitte specialist
  • Tired of It | 09 Sep 2017, 03:34 PM Agree 1
    The problem with the NFIP is that the majority of losses paid are on homes that experience multiple flood claims. The rest of the population in the United States is subsidizing flood insurance for people who have homes near coastal that usually carry a high price tag since they have a water view. The bottom line is that if you can afford a house near or on the water then YOU should be able to afford your own flood insurance on the property without my assistance. Otherwise, don't live near the water OR at least stop using my tax dollars to fund for you to be able to afford the flood insurance on your coastal property. I do realize that there are exceptions to this rule and that the NFIP is important for some communities. However, if the home has experienced multiple flood claims in the program then it's time to move out of the flood zone. We are funding for people to continue to keep their million dollar homes in areas that experience repeated flood events. In my humble opinion this is like buying crop insurance for people that live in the Sahara Desert...of course they're going to make claims as crops don't grow in the desert. If you buy a house on the water in or in a community that repeatedly floods why do we expect a different outcome than more claims on the NFIP program that are funded by our tax dollars?
  • Deserwest | 11 Sep 2017, 09:51 AM Agree 0
    The problem with your post is that it lacks any citations to back up your opening assertion that the majority of losses are from homes that experience multiple claims. Over what time period are you talking about. What data is this based on. Starting in 2013, NFIP did impose substantial and re-curring rate hikes on coastal properties along with many map revisions. The reality on the ground is that not every coastal home is owned by a gazillionaire, middle class people live there too. These homes exist, and while many of these homes would not have been built had it not been for subsidized flood insurance rates, this is nothing new. The concept abounds... Under Obama care, the sick are subsidized by the healthy, Fire insurance costs in high fire hazard areas are subsidized by dollars from lower risk areas, bad drivers are allowed to buy insurance when in fact, they should not be able to drive at all. It would be nice if we could simply pull the plug on bad ideas, but to think you can simply do that and walk away is a childish notion. A certain percentage of homeowners who lose their un-insured homes to flood, will simply walk away, accepting a foreclosure that they will never pay for. So, what you called the bottom line is really not the bottom line at all.
Post a reply