Posted Friday, March 9, 2007 9:32 AM | Contributed by Jeff
At the Six Flags site in eastern New Orleans, one of the areas hardest hit by Katrina, rides that sat for weeks in water are idle, while the parking lot has been turned into a staging point for distribution of Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers. The park's official web site tells visitors only that Six Flags won't be open again in 2007 and the company, which leases the site from the city, is still haggling over Katrina damage.
Read more from AP via WWLT/New Orleans.
Friday, March 9, 2007 10:25 AM
Ugh. And here in Columbus, Ohio, we're home to Nationwide Insurance, who robbed millions of people out of what they deserved. I hope Six Flags weren't involved with them, as "Nationwide is certainly not on anyone's side" except their own.
Friday, March 9, 2007 11:43 AM
Why is it that insurance companies are so opposed to what their purpose is? They never want to pay for things they say are covered. Their practices border on fraud. If I did some of the things they do, I'd be in jail.
Friday, March 9, 2007 1:33 PM
Look at the credit card companies too. What they do boarders on legalized extortion or "finincail slavery"
Friday, March 9, 2007 1:49 PM
The entire insurance indutry might want to re-think the strategy of "Premiums good, claims bad". I know, it's more profitable that way...but it seems like even OUR inept federal government is catching on.
Doesn't hurt any that we now have both a US Congressman (Taylor) and a US Senator (Lott) who are fighting their denied claims....and making their fights QUITE public.
Friday, March 9, 2007 3:12 PM
The government is catching on to what the credit card companies are doing too (extortionism essentially). There was news about that just the other day.
It is possible that SF could win in this litigation because insurance companies seem to have a hard time finding people sympathetic to them (isn't that hard to imagine).
In Mississippi State Farm Insurance was forced to make insurance payments to people who were probably not even really entitled to those payments (some were but some didn't even have the type of coverage they needed for a settlement). State Farm made a big deal about it too (boo hoo) and is basically not doing any new sales of commercial or home policies in that state.
Friday, March 9, 2007 3:21 PM
I'm more surprised that the insurance co. didn't just pay Taylor & Lott's claims. They would've saved themselves money (in the long run) and the probe.
Friday, March 9, 2007 3:26 PM
I just read the story. It's ridiculous that the insurance companies separate the two different damages for hurricane prone states. Wind and flooding kind of go together in those areas. Also, If you can't afford to pay the claims, then a.) raise the insurance rates, or 2.) don't take the money in the first place. (Sorry about the joke) You can't take money and deny legitimate claims. That's not called insurance, it's called theft. As in the insurance companies are stealing money.
Friday, March 9, 2007 5:31 PM
To me, I think we'll see more and more insurance companies not selling insurance at all to people who live by the water. There's already talk of that on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. Whether or not you believe in global warming or not, if the tides were to rise and invade low-lying areas, then you've sort of made your own bed to lie in.
It's a fact of life that people are in love with living on or by the water. I don't think you're going to be able to talk people out of buying waterfront property, because tropical storms and hurricanes only happen to those other people. People have very short-term memories also when it comes to storms.
Friday, March 9, 2007 5:58 PM
As i always say. Insurance companies are the only industry that i know of that gets away with LEGAL discrimination. Higher premimums for drivers because of age, medical issues etc. If i wanted to charge my customers a higher price in my business because of age, race, risk factors etc. i would be run out of business. What they don't say is that if they already cover you and you live in a "high" risk area you are already paying higher premimums every month. My relatives live in the New Orleans area and have never had a single claim on their homeowners policy for over 30 years but now the insurance companies want to raise their rates. Some are not writing policies in Louisiana. Once everyone realizies that the banks and insurance companies run this country, maybe some of us will take action to change it. Until then be prepared for more "legalized discrimination".
Friday, March 9, 2007 7:59 PM
The insurance skyrocketed for everyone here. Even people with not one bit of damage from Katrina.
Saturday, March 10, 2007 7:08 AM
Many houses on the Outer Banks of North Carolina are built on stilts to monimize the risk of damage from storm surges. Storm surge damage is NOT covered by standard homeowner's insurance and a special flood policy is required to obtain such coverage. Often the battle comes down to this: was the damage caused by wind or by the surge. Wind damage is a covered risk as is damage by water other than floods or storm surges (rain (usually following fire or wind damage), water from fire hoses or sprinkler systems, water from broken pipes). Water damage from floods and storm surges is not covered in the standard policy.
Needless to say, several other parks have certain high risks regarding hurricanes. These include Kemahs, Family Kingdom, Moreys Piers, and the Coney Island amusements.. Parks from the past that had this kind of risk included Lake Pontchartrain, Miracle Strip, and Myrtle Beach Pavilion. Other parks have high flood risk such as Knoebels and Coney Island (Cincinnati). Tornadoes are more hit-and-miss and thus easier to insure. Bells was hit by one although this was not the reason for this park's demise.
Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:26 PM
Can you imagine the flood insurance at SFOT or SFOG? They seem to flood at least once every two years, if not sooner.
I want to comment on something canderson talked about and that's discrimination in insurance policies. It's now well known that many peoples car insurance rates are based on credit scores. Therefore, I was plesantly surprised when I got a much lower bill this year than in the past based on my credit score.
But what if things weren't so good? Let's say I had some horrendous hospital bill that I couldn't pay in a timely fashion due to lack of health insurance (thank God I have it)? There goes your credit score, and then you wind up paying more for everything else, even if the two aren't connected.
Monday, March 12, 2007 9:42 AM
I'm all for legal discrimination. If one subgroup has statistically higher risks than another, then they should pay for the insurance. I wonder if some actuary found a correlation between credit score and insuring someone's auto. If you build on the beach, be prepared to pay for insuring it. Why should I have to pay higher rates on my house so you can live on the beach? If it costs the person $2000 a month in insurance to insure it, so be it. But if an insurance company is taking someone's money to "insure" their beach property, and they don't pay. That's bogus.
Like I said before, I'm for this type of discrimination, but in this country those days may be numbered. I mean afterall, we search old ladies getting on planes because we wouldn't want to be discriminatory and only search certain groups of people that's fits a certain profile. Hey, at least we feel good about ourselves because we're not racist.
Monday, March 12, 2007 5:10 PM
You know what sucks worse I dont have a home park within an hour anymore. Good thing my parents were smart and moved to the northshore of New Orleans.