Insurance Won't Cover Game Studio Flood Damage

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
exactly. insurance companies work like casinos: they are only profitable if more people lose than win. that is, on average you're better off without insurance. sure, what if something happens. well, what if nothing happens which is the more likely case. otherwise noone would take the risk to insure you.
If people actually invested money instead of letting it sit in banks insurance would be pointless. I get the idea of car insurance being a must but that's about it. Never liked the idea that insurance is required yet it's left to for profit companies, which just want the money to invest it which you could have done yourself, if people taught you how to invest, then hope calls for the money back is less than the investments and if it's greater than the investments then fuck it the state is on the hook.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
fact: anywhere & everywhere is a potential flood zone

Just not true. My home is in a *relatively* flat area, but is still 60 feet above sea level (no storm surge in history has ever reached above 50). I also have the protection of the Delmarva peninsula to absorb some of that surge, should such a mythical storm make landfall here. I do not live on the side of a hill, so there's no regular flood of water when it rains.

The storm drain system in my state is excellent, but even if that fails my house is elevated (I'd say 5-6 feet above the road), which means that even if storm waters have to use the street to flow-out, they can handle tons of flow before I get my feet wet. In addition, I have no basement, so that is also not an issue.

So yeah, you CAN buy a house that is largely flood-proof, provided you're aware of what you want when you're shopping around (and are not married to beachfront property). Any storm powerful enough to flood my house would have to be so catastrophic that we would have a lot worse things to worry about then my feet getting wet (I'd be far more worried about the roof flying off) :D
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,700
In some areas you might have a hard time even getting flood insurance. I know people that have tried to get it around me (as in towns around me, not people next door) that were turned down as they were told that they weren't in floodzones. Had storms come through, some areas were under 4 feet of water. In these none flood zones mind you. water went away, they tried again to get insurance still were told no. 2 months later, another storm, all these houses were under water again. 2 years later, another major storm, area was under 1 foot of water. still don't know if any of those people were ever able to get flood insurance.

Even with the talks here about some areas not being flood areas, keep in mind that insurance companies will often try to get out of paying for damage if they can. Even on a hill, if you have a basement and a window was to break during a storm and water was to get in through that, I could see some insurance companies trying to claim that as flood damage as normally water damage is anything that happens before the water hits the ground, damage from it once it hits the ground is flood damage. So a broken basement window allowing water on the ground to come in would be flood damage not water damage by that logic.
 

Super-D

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
416
People think they pay insurance companies to get money back in an emergency. What people are really paying insurance companies to do is hire lots of lawyers to come up with reasons not to honor their policies.
 

B00nie

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Messages
9,330
In some areas you might have a hard time even getting flood insurance. I know people that have tried to get it around me (as in towns around me, not people next door) that were turned down as they were told that they weren't in floodzones. Had storms come through, some areas were under 4 feet of water. In these none flood zones mind you. water went away, they tried again to get insurance still were told no. 2 months later, another storm, all these houses were under water again. 2 years later, another major storm, area was under 1 foot of water. still don't know if any of those people were ever able to get flood insurance.

Even with the talks here about some areas not being flood areas, keep in mind that insurance companies will often try to get out of paying for damage if they can. Even on a hill, if you have a basement and a window was to break during a storm and water was to get in through that, I could see some insurance companies trying to claim that as flood damage as normally water damage is anything that happens before the water hits the ground, damage from it once it hits the ground is flood damage. So a broken basement window allowing water on the ground to come in would be flood damage not water damage by that logic.

Thats because insurance business is legalized theft. They're scammers whose only goal is to have you insure yourself in a way that you will pay them a maximum amount of money with minimum chance of ever getting a dime back. In the US it seems they're even more straightforward about this when they simply refuse to insure you if damage seems likely (which is exactly why you take the insurance in the first place).

Insurances should be made illegal and have a state based fund collected for catastrophies.
 

Red Squirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
9,211
If your house is in the process of getting flooded, and you set it on fire, will it be covered?

Seems it would be worth rigging flood sensors to start a fire lol.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
as someone who is from (and my family still lives) on the Coast (South Mississippi), I can attest that the flood damage has been a nightmare for residents there. IIRC, State Farm and Allstate both had length court battles establishing that flood damage should be covered despite the policies (in addition to the insurance companies' malicious attempt to attribute things to water when they were wind damage and vice versa)

Where on the coast? I lived in East Biloxi (The point) prior/during Hurricane Katrina, then moved to St. Martin/OS afterwards.
 

Max Mike

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
395
Yeah but, why shouldnt they? You got insurance to insure your shit, only to find out that you needed extra super duper cherry on top insurance for that one thing that it didnt cover? Wtf is that? I think a lot of people just arent expecting their insurance to be so selective about what it actually insures.

Yes because everyone else should subsidize morons who CHOOSE to live on a flood plain. Only idiots do not know or think standard insurance policies do not cover flood damage.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
If your house is in the process of getting flooded, and you set it on fire, will it be covered?

Seems it would be worth rigging flood sensors to start a fire lol.

No. Because the flood department would blame it on the fire and the fire department would blame the damage on the water.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
If people actually invested money instead of letting it sit in banks insurance would be pointless. I get the idea of car insurance being a must but that's about it. Never liked the idea that insurance is required yet it's left to for profit companies, which just want the money to invest it which you could have done yourself, if people taught you how to invest, then hope calls for the money back is less than the investments and if it's greater than the investments then fuck it the state is on the hook.

Insurance is a good idea, it's just not a good idea when it's set up by for-profit organisations. The concept of many people putting a small amount of money aside in to a pool to cover unlikely events that they couldn't afford to cover is a good idea.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
Where on the coast? I lived in East Biloxi (The point) prior/during Hurricane Katrina, then moved to St. Martin/OS afterwards.

I am from St. Martin. I graduated from St. Martin High in '98.
 

eldertru

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
124
St. Martin South of lemoyne blvd is screwed because of the new maps. Everything increased 7-10 feet and grandfathering goes away this year.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
Yeah insurance companies really fucked the coast. Not much new development on the beach at all, most everything is moving north of I-10.
 

svet-am

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
5,146
Yeah insurance companies really fucked the coast. Not much new development on the beach at all, most everything is moving north of I-10.

The last time I visited my family, I was really sad. It's not just that there's no new development but that things are just kind of frozen in time -- like a ghost town. I _just_ saw in the Sun Herald that the old Grand Casino Biloxi / Jimmy Buffet site was going to be torn down (finally!).
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,700
Yes because everyone else should subsidize morons who CHOOSE to live on a flood plain. Only idiots do not know or think standard insurance policies do not cover flood damage.

I am going to assume you mean that only idiots think it does cover flood instead of the do not that you have there.

That said, with enough rain though lots of places can become flood planes. It is one thing to live somewhere that floods every time it rains, another if you get some freak weather that causes flooding.

When I was younger. we got a few inches of snow, then it turned to sleet and freezing rain for a day or two. Entire yard was a sheet of ice. it then warmed up and we got 5+ inches of rain. which when the ground is covered in ice can't go anywhere so you end up with a lake in your yard. it then the temp dropped to below zero over night and that all froze. now our house is raised compared to the rest of the yard so it was fine, but our entire yard was under a few inches of water and then turned into a huge 4 acre ice rink.

That was fun to play on. But could have gotten bad. that wasn't in a flood zone, just in a place that couldn't handle lots of rain when the ground is covered in a layer of ice.

Which for my area weather like that can come at times. happen again a few years ago, but that time my parent's yard didn't flood. but you could see along a river where it froze with a few inches of ice then it warmed up and rained a lot, water level went up a few inches on top of the ice, then it got cold and the top froze again, then it warmed up and rained again.... By the time it started to melt through the center part of the river and the levels of water went down you could see where the water was up about 5 feet with a layer of ice about every 6 inch along the bank, looked neat. But also went to show how crazy our weather was, one week was 40 and raining, the next about 10 degrees, then back to upper 30s and rain, then back to about 0... while it wouldn't have raised that much, also goes to show how that could have been somebody's yard getting ice, then some rain, then that freeze, then more rain on top of that over and over till they had a yard full of water.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,105
Same with Earthquake. In general: large-scale natural disasters that are predictable for your property are *NOT* covered by standard homeowners insurance.

I swear every time we finally decided it was time to get earthquake insurance on our house, a tiny earthquake happened within a day. Of course, after *ANY* measurable earthquake, they won't sell new insurance (in case it was really a precursor to a big earthquake.)
Earthquakes are different though, there's no "Earthquake season" where in the case of floods it often is "anytime is rains" or during "hurricane season" etc. Looking at San Francisco It'd probably cost on the order of $3k/year just for the earthquake coverage, only two Earthquakes occurred in this area of any real destructive qualities, once in 1906 and the other in 1989, my house wasn't around in 1906, and in 1989 there wasn't much of any damage to the house, maybe some cracked stucco but it's questionable if that was caused by the earthquake. There are thousands of earthquakes every day in this state, unless you lived in the Marina or other areas with liquifaction of the soil could occur it wouldn't be worth it.

Besides I could imagine if there was an earthquake what the insurance companies would say "oh you didn't build this up to code" or "oh you changed a light switch once, did you get a permit for that?" and pay outs would be nonexistent
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
Earthquakes are different though, there's no "Earthquake season" where in the case of floods it often is "anytime is rains" or during "hurricane season" etc. Looking at San Francisco It'd probably cost on the order of $3k/year just for the earthquake coverage, only two Earthquakes occurred in this area of any real destructive qualities, once in 1906 and the other in 1989, my house wasn't around in 1906, and in 1989 there wasn't much of any damage to the house, maybe some cracked stucco but it's questionable if that was caused by the earthquake. There are thousands of earthquakes every day in this state, unless you lived in the Marina or other areas with liquifaction of the soil could occur it wouldn't be worth it.

Besides I could imagine if there was an earthquake what the insurance companies would say "oh you didn't build this up to code" or "oh you changed a light switch once, did you get a permit for that?" and pay outs would be nonexistent
Sorry that was fire damage we don't cover that we cover earthquake damage.
 
D

Deleted member 88227

Guest
The last time I visited my family, I was really sad. It's not just that there's no new development but that things are just kind of frozen in time -- like a ghost town. I _just_ saw in the Sun Herald that the old Grand Casino Biloxi / Jimmy Buffet site was going to be torn down (finally!).

Yeah that area is a sight for sore eyes for sure. Wonder if the city is forcing them to level it.

There has been development, but like I said nearly all of it has been north of I-10.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,822
Yeah insurance companies really fucked the coast. Not much new development on the beach at all, most everything is moving north of I-10.

Not exactly a bad thing. We know that at least once every 20-30 a huge storm is going to devastate those areas. It's not every year, but every time it happens, the amount of damage is higher, because for some reason everyone wants to live on/near the beach.

And to be honest, I never understood it at all in areas near the Mississippi. The water fugly. It's not bad if you get out to Mobile and it's beautiful once you get into Florida, but otherwise, meh.

Haven't been to TX beaches in a long time, but the one time I went to Galveston, I was shocked that we'd wasted the gas to drive there. The beach was hard, lots of crap in the sand and the water was nothing special.

Less development appeals to me, but the main reason, I think, for the insurance issues is because 2004-2005 was a period of heavy damage on the coast and insurance companies no longer felt they could safely insure the area. And I know around this board it's unpopular to suggest this, but I've read insurance companies are very worried about global warming, it's affects on coastal areas and ultimately their bottom line.
 

sfsuphysics

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,105
Sorry that was fire damage we don't cover that we cover earthquake damage.

One thing my insurance made me do is have an earthquake shutoff for my gas, basically if it shakes too much (or I accidentally hit it with a shovel or something) it cuts the gas at the main. Just to make sure that if there is an earthquake fire doesn't wipe the house out and they had to pay that :D
 

Semantics

2[H]4U
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,811
One thing my insurance made me do is have an earthquake shutoff for my gas, basically if it shakes too much (or I accidentally hit it with a shovel or something) it cuts the gas at the main. Just to make sure that if there is an earthquake fire doesn't wipe the house out and they had to pay that :D
mmm well i know in california fire damage post earthquake is under homeowners insurance not earthquake and you tend to buy earthquake from the same company as homeowners to prevent insurance companies fighting you on damages they cover because the want another company to pay for it. But yeah automatic gas shutoff values required.

I was just prattling on on how some insurances get separated out like flood and wind damage for hurricanes.
 

dikky

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
92
I though by law only the fed govt could offer flooding insurance. Priv insurance is only for damage from water backing up.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
Why does a software development house need to be in a flood zone, in fact why do they need to be anywhere near one? They need an internet connection and electricity. That's it.

Kind of tired of hearing about this over and over. It seems every year Americans get more and more stupid and they build worse buildings in more dangerous places. Why do they do this? Simple they expect the government will come fix their problems no matter how stupid they are. I understand that some things like tornados cannot be avoided and that is what insurance is for. But all these people building houses right on the beach and down by the river, in a swamp etc... I don't feel sorry for them. If you cannot afford to build a dwelling that can handle what the local environment brings every 100 years then you should not be building there. This isn't some sort of company that has to be near water.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
I though by law only the fed govt could offer flooding insurance. Priv insurance is only for damage from water backing up.

I don't think there is any such law, but what I do think is that most private insurance companies won't bother to insure you for floods because they know it's a losing proposition. Instead a bunch of voters got their stupid representatives to throw up some crazy subsidized federal flood insurance.
 

MetalX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2003
Messages
4,709
No flood insurance in a flood zone? Zoinks.


The free market has decided, RIP Hello Games.
 

Red Squirrel

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
9,211
Why does a software development house need to be in a flood zone, in fact why do they need to be anywhere near one? They need an internet connection and electricity. That's it.

Kind of tired of hearing about this over and over. It seems every year Americans get more and more stupid and they build worse buildings in more dangerous places. Why do they do this? Simple they expect the government will come fix their problems no matter how stupid they are. I understand that some things like tornados cannot be avoided and that is what insurance is for. But all these people building houses right on the beach and down by the river, in a swamp etc... I don't feel sorry for them. If you cannot afford to build a dwelling that can handle what the local environment brings every 100 years then you should not be building there. This isn't some sort of company that has to be near water.

Yeah that's a good point. Look at New Orleans, that place should be a lake, not have houses. Or all the people living in tornado alley and having to rebuild every year. I can't imagine living like that.
 

kcmastrpc

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,276

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
Yeah that's a good point. Look at New Orleans, that place should be a lake, not have houses. Or all the people living in tornado alley and having to rebuild every year. I can't imagine living like that.

Yeah, let's just have those people all move. Because that's sensible.
 

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,879
Sucks when your home is considered to be in a flood zone, and the bank demands you get flood insurance. Even though there never was or will never be a flood in my area. I live in Jersey where Sandy hit, and there was no flood. But because the whole state was hit hard the insurance companies here are flipping out. What's worse, the people that were flooded aren't getting any money.

Insurance companies are a waste of money.

As a fellow NJ homeowner, uhh.. NO. You are getting hit because you live someplace that got the flood zones redrawn. Just because you aren't at risk from a storm surge (Sandy), doesn't mean you are not at risk from other forms of flooding. I don't live in the drainage path for anything, and would have to get whacked by something with a storm surge about 2.5 times as bad as sandy to have to worry about getting water in the basement. Nobody has bothered me one bit about flood insurance because even after the remapping I'm in the 500 year plus zone.

It's like bound brook. It didn't get wet from sandy, but the place floods like nobody's business from anything that dumps enough rain in the right place. Even after the flood controls.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,822
Yeah that's a good point. Look at New Orleans, that place should be a lake, not have houses. Or all the people living in tornado alley and having to rebuild every year. I can't imagine living like that.

There is no safe place to live.
California: earthquakes. Gulf Coast: Tornadoes, Hurricanes and a big ass fault in MS that once caused the Mississippi to flow backwards. Northeast, might have have a hurricane, blizzard, flooding from snow melts. Arizona is a desert and so is half of TX...the rest is subject to one or more of the aforementioned natural disasters. Washington State and Alaska have Volcanoes. And hell, if Yellowstone's volcano blows, who knows what areas will be safe.

And New Orleans shouldn't be a lake. It should flood every year and if more areas were flooding, then the damage from the occasional hurricane would be greatly reduced.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
There is a big difference between trying to deal with random tornadoes or lightning which can strike pretty much anywhere land exists and plopping your home down right on the beach where huricanes are known to hit or in a river delta. Now I am not saying no one should do it, but what I am saying is if you live there you SHOULD build your damn house such that it can withstand the conditions. That is the key point and it is very possible to do it. As it is in America the government subsidizes flood insurance and these clowns don't even do the basic things that people in other countries or even people who have lived in costal areas for thousands of years would do. Design your house so it can fill right up with water then drain out. Or stick it up on stilts to keep it above a storm surge. Use materials that are strong enough and water resistant. Gasp actually have shutters. Instead they build their houses cheap so they can have all the luxuries and massive size of a house then expect the government to pay to put it all back every time it gets destroyed. Notice that when these storm surges or floods hit that large buildings do not just fall apart? The reason is because of the risk of loss of life large building must be built to with stand it. And IMO any living quarters should be held to the same standards. If you cannot afford to build that well then you cannot live there.
 
D

Deleted member 108676

Guest
I know homeowners insurance doesn't insure floods from rains, rivers, oceans, etc, but what if a pipe bursts in the house and floods it? Is that insured?

Disclaimer: My wife owned our house before we met, therefore I've never had to shop for homeowners insurance and don't know the details about the question I just asked.
 

[Tripod]MajorPayne

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
4,945
I know homeowners insurance doesn't insure floods from rains, rivers, oceans, etc, but what if a pipe bursts in the house and floods it? Is that insured?

Disclaimer: My wife owned our house before we met, therefore I've never had to shop for homeowners insurance and don't know the details about the question I just asked.

Generally, yes. Malfunctions of equipment, backing up sewage, etc. would be covered under your standard homeowner's policy. Now, if the sewage backs up because you got 4 feet of rain, it might be considered part of the "flood damage".

But if your pipes burst on a summer day in a clear sky, your regular homeowner's SHOULD pay. You should read your policy or call your agent to confirm. I am not a lawyer or a licensed insurance salesperson.
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,822
There is a big difference between trying to deal with random tornadoes or lightning which can strike pretty much anywhere land exists and plopping your home down right on the beach where huricanes are known to hit or in a river delta. Now I am not saying no one should do it, but what I am saying is if you live there you SHOULD build your damn house such that it can withstand the conditions. That is the key point and it is very possible to do it. As it is in America the government subsidizes flood insurance and these clowns don't even do the basic things that people in other countries or even people who have lived in costal areas for thousands of years would do. Design your house so it can fill right up with water then drain out. Or stick it up on stilts to keep it above a storm surge. Use materials that are strong enough and water resistant. Gasp actually have shutters. Instead they build their houses cheap so they can have all the luxuries and massive size of a house then expect the government to pay to put it all back every time it gets destroyed. Notice that when these storm surges or floods hit that large buildings do not just fall apart? The reason is because of the risk of loss of life large building must be built to with stand it. And IMO any living quarters should be held to the same standards. If you cannot afford to build that well then you cannot live there.

Virtually nobody can build structures that will survive a cat 5 storm, fortunately, they are very rare. If I had to guess, I'd say New Orleans takes a direct hit from a major storm no more than once every 40 years. I may be missing some, but my guess is 1928, '65 and 2005. Other storms have hit the coast (certainly Andrew damaged Morgan City, though it wasn't nearly as bad as Miami).


There's no way you can build for a Katrina. Cat 4/5 storms rarely hit the U.S. Lemme tell you, most of the Gulf is far more prepared for storms than Manhattan. Sandy was a huge storm, but it was only a cat 2. If the NE ever gets hit by a major storm, the damage will dwarf Katrina. If a tropical storm like Allison came across NY and dumped 40" of rain, buhbye. Sure it's unlikely, but all of those storms are uncommon and in the case of Katrina, had the Core of Engineers not dropped the ball, much of the damage would have been averted. Yes there would have been wind damage, but most of the flooding (especially in Orleans parish) wouldn't have happened. On the Jefferson side of the 21st St Canal, damage was pretty bad....when you crossed to NOLA, where the canal breached, it was total devastation and it was completely avoidable. The Core of Engineer's predicted the failures 20 years earlier, but didn't do anything to fix the flaws.
 

rudy

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
8,704
lol every 40 years? So you are saying people should not bother to build homes to with stand basic conditions that are likely to be hit once every generation?
 

nilepez

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
11,822
lol every 40 years? So you are saying people should not bother to build homes to with stand basic conditions that are likely to be hit once every generation?

If the Army Corp of Engineers hadn't fucked up, most of the LA Katrina damage would have been wind damage and NOLA is a footnote (at most) in the Katrina saga.

And if we take your advice, then you'll save on rebuilding, but most of the refining capacity in the U.S. goes away, and you know how gas prices go up every year around March? That's because refineries switch blends and do maintenance at those times. Now let's knock out 40% of our oil refining capacity and 30% of gas refining capacity. I could be wrong, but unless we make a very fast transition to alternative energy, it'll cost more than your share of federal Natural disaster funding.

refinerymaplarge.png
 
Top