Family who lost home stunned by Allstate ad

[conehead433]

Private insurance companies do not pay for homes damaged by flooding. If the house is a total loss because of the aforementioned what good is it to pay for a roof repair. The homeowners were idiots not to have national flood insurance, which some homeowners refuse to purchase because it is expensive. If private carriers handled flood insurance it would be so expensive no one other than millionaires would be able to afford it. The premiums charged by the government don't even come close to paying for all the homes reconstructions, but you can be pretty sure that almost all the million dollar homes had flood insurance. Now the taxpayer will be footing the difference to rebuild those homes. Technically Allstate doesn't owe these folks anything, they should have accepted the $10 pity settlement.

 

[Jimzz]

^

Not even close. Federal Flood insurance has a maximum of $250,000 of building coverage for single family residential buildings.
So federal flood insurance will not be rebuilding million dollar homes, let alone taxpayers "footing the difference".

And as pointed out there is no clear proof their home was taken down only by flooding or wind. Anybody that thinks they know are idiots and at best guessing.

 

[sportage]

Technically any damage from this storm could probably be termed flood related.
Water involvement or not.
That is how and why Allstate will win this in court.
Unless they fear their reputation and decide to settle.
Which is most likely.
Considering Allstate has already apologized for using their home in an ad.
That exposed their soft spot. Public opinion.

 

[OCGuy]

Doubt it. There was an insurance company in the midwest that was sued and took years of court action to get them to pay out after large damage area.

The problem is paying this 1 claim opens the door to many others. If this was a small isolated case then yea. But because of the billions of damage 1 case will be treated as a bellweather to others.

You can doubt all you want, but if there were "many" other people with obvious wind damage getting denied claims because of "flooding", you would see a massive consolidated law-suit, that even if won by Allstate, would greatly tarnish their image.

 

[Jimzz]

You can doubt all you want, but if there were "many" other people with obvious wind damage getting denied claims because of "flooding", you would see a massive consolidated law-suit, that even if won by Allstate, would greatly tarnish their image.

Thats if they all had all-state in that little area.

Its still early so there could be a class action for this. The lawyers need to gather more before going public or it gives allstate and others a chance to flip it and either make a better payout or cover up.

Like I said I'm not sure who is right or wrong, both could be right at the same time. But I general side with the owner with insurance companies history in cases like this.