this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
398 points (99.3% liked)

News

23305 readers
3692 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Flooding is separate from typical US home insurance and many homeowners are not adequately covered

As millions of US residents begin working to file insurance claims on their homes in the aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, many could be denied, particularly if their homes were damaged by flooding.

A quirk in the US home insurance market is that flood insurance is separate from typical home insurance, which usually covers wind damage from hurricanes but not flooding. Homeowners must purchase flood insurance separately if they want their homes protected against flooding.

And many don't. In some areas where Hurricane Helene hit the hardest, less than 1% of homes had flood insurance when the storm hit. In Buncombe county in North Carolina, home to Asheville, only 0.9% of homes had flood insurance, according to data from the Insurance Information Institute.

The number of people with flood insurance in Florida, which was hit by Hurricane Milton two weeks after parts of the state were battered by Helene, is higher than in other parts of the country. But still, the take-up is low. In Sarasota county, which took a direct hit from Milton, just 23% of residents have flood insurance.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works 168 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Insurance companies get away with the most fucked up shit as a matter of course and nobody holds them accountable.

[–] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 72 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Insurance companies have a conflict of interest inherent in their business model. They make money by taking your money up front and then paying you back as little as possible at a later date. Any way to weasel out of paying up, especially in a big event like a hurricane, is a huge money saver for them. And most people are desperate. Their house is gone. They aren't in a position where they can argue and sit on the phone for hours and work it out.

[–] IHawkMike@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago

And then, even if they do pay out, they just jack up your rates to make it all back. That's if they don't just drop your coverage completely.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago

Also as soon as they pay you out they either jack up the rates to recover what you paid or drop you entirely as you’re no longer profitable. It’s such a massive conflict of interest

[–] ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

They make money by taking your money up front and then paying you back as little as possible at a later date.

That's not entirely the case. Typically, there is a lag (of a few years) between the payment of premiums and the paying out of claims. Insurance companies invest the premiums in the meantime and profit off the interest/gains from these investments (called the "float"). Well-run (and well-invested) insurers can actually collect less in premiums than they pay out in claims and still be profitable.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 33 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

We need some kind of ACA for regular insurance, where unless people are literally building in a swamp or the bottom of a crater near a lake/river they should be just automatically covered.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 76 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Florida is uninsurable, that's kinda the issue.

There's a reason so many big insurance companies have left Florida. And honestly I don't really want even more Federal money going to rebuild in the most common path of ever rising hurricane intensity.

I want Federal funds set aside to move people out of Florida in homes elsewhere for those who want it. If you want to rebuild your house in the path of the hurricane you can do it on your own dime.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

A good use of money and imminent domain. A one time payment to a person and relocating them is also something the US government has experience doing, especially in Florida. Can you imagine the irony of doing it to the white folks who took over the region?

But seriously, it is an actual good idea. It would save billions in the long run and would be a good use of effort to reduce the risk of more people going broke from random weather.

[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Not sure how we relocate basically everyone in the South though. And what about tornado alley, do we move all those people also? And then you have wild fires and earthquakes, do we move all of California also? I get what you are saying, but getting millions of people to move states or across the country isn't a simple thing. And what do we do with all the then empty previously "high valued" real estate? I do think we ultimately have to do something as global warming continues to cause humans issues at what seems like an accelerated rate, but we also have an alarming number of people that do not want to address it (or that even deny it happening).

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

And what about tornado alley, do we move all those people also?

What the fuck about it?

According to NOAA, the total cost of property damage for all tornadoes in 2022 was $700 million.

The damage cost from just Helene is estimated to be $47 billion.

Hurricanes are significantly more destructive than tornadoes.

There's no place on earth that doesn't suffer from natural disasters, and it's foolish to compare hurricanes to the rest. Wildfires can be mitigated somewhat, and earthquakes aren't predictable, neither of which are true about hurricanes. But hurricanes are going to get more destructive and more frequent as the climate warms, so rebuilding where they're going to predictably continue to hit is just foolish.

And what do we do with all the then empty previously "high valued" real estate?

What about that too? If people want to continue to build on the path of hurricanes, let them. Just stop using taxpayer money to bail them out.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Not sure how we relocate basically everyone in the South though. And what about tornado alley, do we move all those people also? And then you have wild fires and earthquakes, do we move all of California also? I get what you are saying, but getting millions of people to move states or across the country isn’t a simple thing. And what do we do with all the then empty previously “high valued” real estate?

From your previous post, your answer to your question is: You don't move them. Instead you skyrocket the rates of insurance on the rest of the nation so that people can continuously have their houses in high risk area destroyed and rebuilt while the rest of the country pays for it. This is what an "ACA for home insurance" would do.

A more realistic approach would be to change the building codes to accommodate specific natural disasters for that geography. You want to build a house in the woods? Now you need a significant fire break around the house and need to build the house out of fire resistant materials if you want coverage. This is discussion of building regulation changes is already occurring. Same thing for houses in hurricane areas. If you want to build there, you have to build houses that will survive there and not be destroyed by the inevitable conditions.

None of this large transition is completed overnight, but it has to start happening now. What we have now is unsustainable.

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Whoa whoa whoa, building codes? That's just costly red tape! How will builders see ever increasing profit margins with all this government bureaucracy?! Remove the building codes entirely, let the Free Market^TM^ do an invisible handshake with Jesus, and the rest will take care of itself /s

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] huginn@feddit.it 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Climate disasters are not affecting the world equally everywhere. Hurricanes are far and away the most destructive climate related disaster and they disproportionately affect Florida of all US states

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Hurricanes are far and away the most destructive climate related disaster and they disproportionately affect Florida of all US states

It would say drought would be a climate related disaster more destructive than hurricanes.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

It'd probably be excellent to deny claims for anyone intending to rebuild instate and make it clear to those that do that they're fucked.

[–] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There's a UK scheme called Flood Re that does this kind of thing. If you're more than a certain probability of flooding, you need to go with an insurer that's backed by the government's reinsurance policy.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

That's basically how US flood insurance works. The entire country is mapped out in flood zones based on a every 100 year occurrence. If you're in the zone you're required to buy insurance... but it's bullshit. They have a bunch of inland people paying the same rate as the people's houses that are on the coast and flood every 5 to 10 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tyrangle@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Private insurance used to offer flood insurance like 100 years ago, but to stay in business they had to raise premiums to a point where no one could realistically afford it (which is to say that living in a flood zone is not financially feasible for most people). The government had to step in with their own flood insurance program, which was tied to regulation intending to minimize the risk of flooding in at-risk zones so that premiums could remain affordable. Even these measures haven't been sufficient to keep the program from running out of money, and we've been subsidizing it with taxpayer bailouts to keep it afloat.

All this is to say that private insurance is literally incapable of insuring against flood damage, so you can't blame them for any of this. If you want to blame someone, blame Trump for rolling back standards that would have allowed FEMA to consider climate change in their risk models.

For private insurance, the key is "to stay in business with huge profits" for the gov version, it's politics of course, which you point out. They could easily fund it.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Their entire business model is fucking people over.

[–] tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

That would require good governance, appropriate oversight, and consumer activism. Unfortunately Florida man has no interest in these things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Professorozone@lemmy.world 51 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Hmmm, I don't get this. Usually if you're in a flood area the mortgage company requires flood insurance. If you don't get it, they get it for you and send you the bill.

But as most are saying, it's a scam. They will tell you you have flood insurance without mentioning that there are three different kinds of flood damage. Rising water is the one most of us think of, but there is flood damage cause by plumbing issues and finally wind driven water. To a home owner, it's water damage. To an insurance company it's an opportunity to either charge you three times or deny your claim.

It's great!

[–] BottleOfAlkahest@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

Asheville is in the mountains, one of the reasons it was such a big story is that no one expected Asheville to flood. I'm not surprised almost no one up there has flood insurance.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I would expect that it wouldn't be considered a flood zone if it took a hurricane to flood it.

load more comments (3 replies)

Flood areas are defined as somewhere where there's a 1 in a 100 chance of a flood happening. The problem is all the calculations for that are based on historic data, which is to say they don't take into account climate change.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zink@programming.dev 43 points 3 weeks ago

I had flood insurance for a long time, in a non-flood zone. It was cheap and it made sense since storm water sometimes runs across my back yard.

Until one day I thought we got close to needing to use it. I spoke to somebody at the insurance company and got to know my policy on my own a bit.

It doesn’t matter how bad my house might flood. A flood claim would not matter unless either a 2 acre area flooded or a neighbor’s house had a nice flood claim too.

Lot of fucking good that does for somebody with a small yard who lives on a hill! I actually got rid of the policy years ago.

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago

It's the dental of home insurance.

We carry flood insurance, it's cheap if you are not in a flood zone.

But the home insurance in Florida is mostly just a scam to suck money out of the state. Company is incorporated, funnels money from policies into the pockets of the rich, then they go bust and fail to pay claims. Then the same people start all over with a different name. While cherry picking policies and leaving the riskier for the state to insure.

If Florida would kick all the insurers out and put everyone on Citizens it would be better. I really only feel "insured" when we fall onto the state plan; and if I had a spare half million you bet I'd self insure and get an umbrella policy for liability, not keep paying those assholes for nothing.

[–] 2ugly2live@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, that sounds about right. People think there's a standard "full coverage" and then when something happens, suddenly the insurance company wants to make sure you understand the policy.

Taking those calls must be heartbreaking (though I'm sure the higher ups could care less).

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

Yea it's full coverage the way heath insurance is full coverage, eyes, teeth and mental health are not included. It's fucked up

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Another thing to know about ahead of time is replacement cost coverage. I knew something that only had cash value coverage for their roof in addition to an $8000 deductible. They got a check from the insurance for about $200 and had to pay the rest out of pocket.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] badbytes@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Insurance is a straight up scam. In every case.

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Nah, in this case I blame the government for not having clearer regulations and a lack of informational programs.

Maybe all insurance should cover floods - but if we wanted that we'd need to regulate it... these policies were sold without flood insurance and it's quite likely the sellers tried to aggressively upsell them to also get flood insurance.

Maybe the insurance should be government run but we need insurance - health insurance is a scam because it's a fucking fake market, but housing insurance has a healthy market and insurers that reneg on their contract get taken to court and pursued by some truly asshole lawyers... you might argue that falsely denying a claim should come with higher penalties (and I'd agree) but half our government thinks regulations are the fucking devil.

Insurance is an inherently good idea - if we shuffled things up so that none of these people had any insurance then we'd have foreclosures and homelessness across the south right now - insurance companies are dicks but insurance is a good thing to have.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

How can insurances make billions of profit if it isn't a scam?

Isn't it supposed to be a system to share the cost of damage, not to rip off people?

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

Yup, it certainly rakes in excessive profits - but the core concept of insurance isn't a scam. It's a good idea that gets abused in the American market.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago

Insurance fraud cuts both ways.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

How the heck is that even possible? I was forced to get flood insurance on a house that's nowhere near an ocean just because there is a stream nearby that almost never even has water in it. Getting a damn LOMA processed is confusing as all hell. Do 90+ percent of people not have a mortgage or something?

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 weeks ago

That's so weird because my house is literally on a lake and I didn't have to get flood insurance. I had to look up all of the flood maps and saw that the chance of flooding is once every 1000 years.

NOAA (I think) updated flood predictions and the flood line moved slightly toward my house. Still no flood insurance required.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] tal 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Some of those people who did have flood coverage will only have it because they have a mortgage and were legally obligated to buy it as a condition of getting a mortgage (that is, it protects the mortgage lender's equity). It looks like the federal government requires people who live in a flood risk area and get a federal mortgage to buy flood insurance, for example:

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R44593.pdf

An area of specific focus on the FIRM is the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The SFHA is intended to distinguish the flood risk zones that have a chance of flooding during a “1 in 100 year flood” or greater frequency.

Any federal entity that makes, guarantees, or purchases mortgages must, by law, require property owners in the SFHA to purchase flood insurance, generally through the NFIP.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

What insurance company in its right mind is offering flood insurance during a climate apocalypse?

What would actually happen if there was $100,000 of damage or more to like 100,000 houses in that area. FEMA only pays less than $50k. And according to the studies they always talk about, most people don't have $50k to fix their house. Would they just be homeless? The mold growth from all that water would make the houses unlivable.

[–] Zugyuk@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like the preexisting conditions situation. We need Obama 2.0 to make Obamainsure

load more comments
view more: next ›