I wasn't judging you. I'm just giving it to you straight. The fact is that "small print" is there to fully explain what you are, and are not, getting. An insurance policy has "exclusions" which tell you what is not covered. There is an "insuring agreement" which tells you what is covered. Granted, much of it seems to be in legalese, but that is why there are lawyers. Two trite sayings apply here:

1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and
2. Caveat Emptor

I'll save you the time...this means buyer beware.

This really does seem to be pretty obvious. Insurance contracts are remarkably detailed. It's not the insurance company's fault if you can't comprehend it.

My only issue, as noted earlier, is if there was material misrepresentation on behalf of an agent regarding the scope of coverage in the hurricane policy. Best of luck proving that, if it ever happened though.

That's where I'm going because alot of people, myself included, felt we were. My agent explained to me that the supplemental policy would cover any wind or wind driven water damage.

I disagree. Creating confusion is exactly what they wanted to do. My supplemental policy does exclude flooding, but does not include or exclude wind driven water; hence the ambiguity. The agent told me it did and that's the ONLY reason I bought.,
I know most of you are against this No.1 because YOU were not affected and No. 2 because you don't want your rates to go up. But look for it to happen regardless because there's already been a class action lawsuit filed. If there's a jury that hates big, greedy corporations (especially an industry that has $400 billion in capital according to Fox News) and who is or has family members in the same perdicament. It's all but a sealed deal whether that's right or wrong. And I understand the repercussions if they're made to pay.

This being said, I will concede one point however. If people in affected areas only had simple home owner's insurance where it should be common knowledge; especially to hurricane veterans, that flooding or wind driven water is not covered, they probably shouldn't be compensated. But, in my and others like me situations, I feel we have a strong case and will probably end up filing outside of the class action suit since a win will probably get me more money and my lawyer will not charge me if we lose. I'm just thankful that I have the means to cover my damage while this is tied up in court for the next 5 years.

Other than the lawsuit, looks like there may be a couple of alternatives lawmakers are looking at.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/p...919/NEWS0110/50919010&SearchID=73220869566741

I am not that familiar with homeowner policies, but I would think that if the wind driven rain came through a damaged roof or a broken window, the subsequent damage would be covered. If the wind driven rain was in the form of a storm surge, then that's flooding. Does your policy define wind driven rain? Was your damage due to flood waters or rain water?

Fanatic, like what SF is saying, it seems clear that it's either flood or rain damage. It's not all that difficult, IMO.

It's NOT that I haven't been impacted. I detest the insurance industry as much as anyone. I just also happen to have an equal disdain for people that sign agreements they don't understand and then want other people to make up for their lack of reading comprehension. If you don't understand what you're signing, get an explanation, in writing. Don't be lazy with something so important.

Who knows, I might be putting my insurance to the test after this weekend!

Watch it now. That's what pays my bills.

Contrary to popular belief, Insurance companies are not out to screw people. All states have strict bad faith laws on the books. Companies don't screw around with premium paying customers. The policy is a contract and the provisions have been reviewed and approved by the respective Insurance Commissioners. The Company will pay what they are obligated to pay. Conversely, you don't pay what you don't owe.

SF -- I hear ya. Most of us probably work in industries that people dislike for some reason or other.

My problem with insurance companies: increasing someone's rate for being in an accident in which they were not at fault. That's just BS. Complete and utter BS.

I agree. That shouldn't happen.

Oh yeah? If it's so clear, then tell me where the wind damage fits in? Flood or rain? Well how 'bout this? If the wind's not blowing do I get water damage? No? Sounds pretty ambiguous to me.

Way to kick a man when he's down you unsympathetic F**K! I may have been a little naive by trusting an unscrupulous agent, but I'd hardly call that lazy. You have no idea what it's like and even though you'd be spittin' teeth right now if you were standing in front of me, I hope you never have to find out. Go back and re-read my post please. This is not about my standard homeowners policy. It's about the supplemental "hurricane" policy. That's where the ambiguity comes in. I PROMISE you, if the roles were reversed, you'd have a whole new perspective. I know, I know. You would've made sure all your i's were dotted and t's were crossed ahead of time. So easy to say after the fact. Bottom line is, even though I asked for it, your opinion (or mine for that matter) is irrelevant. The only one that matters is the jury who hears my case and I'm pretty sure that most of them will agree that wind driven water is not a flood.