| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Should insurance companies pay for clean-up.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 8:53:36 AM
|
Most, if not all insurance polices have coverage for cleaning up storm debris. It seems that a fund should be set up for the clean up of the lake, and insurance companies, that insured the damaged properties, ought to be compelled to contribute to that fund, in appropriate proportion to the amounts of the policies they have written.
Just because insured materials landed in the lake instead of the insured's yard should not relieve the insurance company from the obligation to pay for the clean-up.
Such a fund, combined with the 90% of the clean up cost that should be covered by the feds, ought to totallycoverthe costs.
|
| Name: |
lamont
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Great Thought Kizma but...........
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 10:59:14 AM
|
you do understand that this "fund" will simply be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher premiums? Business profit/ loss is really very simple.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Great Thought Kizma but...........
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 11:46:09 AM
|
at the end of the day there are two choices:
1. the mess stays
2. someone cleans it up.
Either way there is cost either/or economic or social.
The only questions is who will pay.
I think the insurance companies should pay to the limit of their exposure. If they can pass the cost on. then so be it. If not, (as in the consumer goes elsewhere) then the companies may have pay less in bonuses or even be put into receivership.
Nothing is simple these days.
|
| Name: |
HARRY
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Great Thought Kizma but...........
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 12:16:46 PM
|
But people who don't live on or use Lake Martin shouldn't have to pay higher premiums
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Should insurance companies pay for clean-up.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 12:51:58 PM
|
We're beginning to learn more about the clean up situation and it's not pretty. Alabama Power announced last week on their website that they were receiving bids for the heavy cleanup and would begin work shortly at Henry Neely Lake and Lake Martin. Then about Thursday of last week the tune changed; APCo pulled down the announcement and fell silent--no clean up initiated. We have determined that APCo found out that FERC was paying to clean up Guntersville Lake, a government lake, and now APCo appears to be willing to sit on the stump and wait on government assistance. Meanwhile the debris is spreading around the lake and increasing chances of ruining the economy of three counties this summer. We have heard ADECA has been tasked to figure out a way to get FEMA to pay 75% of the clean up costs, and the state is broke and doesn't want to pay the other 25%. So here we sit.
Seems the boats and cars are being removed by the insurance companies--remember they have serial numbers and can be traced. Houses and general debris can't be traced to a certain owner; the insurance companies are probably going to hide behind that fact and not pay--that goes for debris on land as well as in the water. Kisma has an interesting concept--for the next storm--not sure it would work for this storm.
The question we have asked and no one, so far, has been able to answer is: Is APCo really responsible to clean up this lake? They claim it's a "public lake", but they own the bottom of the lake, except the river bottom, and they seem to have the ultimate say on what dock you can build, so in my mind they own the lake. We're digging, trying to find out some facts and will share any hard information we get.
|
| Name: |
Summer Lover
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Should insurance companies pay for clean-up.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 1:39:03 PM
|
After some of the debris gets through to those four wood chippers at the south end of the lake, maybe the RFQ's will be back up...
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Should insurance companies pay for clean-up.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 1:43:24 PM
|
That's my guess, too. Everything eventually goes to the dam.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We should talk to Jerry Beasley.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 2:54:32 PM
|
1. Didn't he sue a taco a few months back.
2. Everybody on the Coosa River got money from Solutia.
3. Alabama Power and the Marine Police shut down the volunteer clean up.
4. MP's will arrest you if you get any crap out of the lake.
5. Ferc could be a defendant.
If we have a lawyer with the ball to sue a taco because it does not have enough meat, he should be creative enough to find many defendants in this case. Of course, the lawyers might get all of the money and we might get a coupon for 10 cents off our next taco.
|
| Name: |
Osms
-
|
|
| Subject: |
We should talk to Jerry Beasley.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 3:19:19 PM
|
By Memorial Day, we probably can get a lot of class action signatures at the local Prop Shop.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nope
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 4:41:12 PM
|
We should follow the old premise I insure what I own and you insure what you own. How hard is that?
|
| Name: |
muddauber
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Should insurance companies pay for clean-up.
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 10:25:19 PM
|
Great suggestion, er, I mean, point.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Oh I don't know...
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 10:47:59 PM
|
Tax the mean old oil companies for the clean up. How about individual responsibility for what we each own? Hello?
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nope
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 11:21:55 PM
|
Premises are not laws. If my boat winds up on top of you dock, upside down. My insurance company will pay to have it removed. So if it winds up at the bottom of the lake upside down, why should my insurance not pay to have it removed.
|
| Name: |
John C
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Taco Bell "Would it kill you to say you're sorry?"
|
|
Date:
|
5/12/2011 11:27:53 PM
|
I think the Taco Bell fiasco is hi-larious.
Beasely Allen wins most of their cases but this one - they took a black eye over it. Check the linked article.
URL: Taco Bell still on the offensive
|
| Name: |
Malthus
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nope
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2011 10:28:32 AM (updated 5/13/2011 10:37:02 AM)
|
If you'll check your Homeowner's policy there is a coverage amount usually called 'debris removal'. That will pay for (or help with) removing debris from your own property. As far as I know there is no coverage whatsoever for removing your debris from anyone else’s property (nor public property). The only exception here is if you are somehow responsible for the debris.
If you cut a tree (yourself) and it damages your neighbor’s property or spreads debris over their yard, there should be some coverage. Keep in mind that you are responsible for the damage that was done in that scenario. However if, during a storm, a tree from your yard falls on your neighbor’s house, you are not responsible/liable. The only exception would be cases of negligence where you knew the tree was dead and failed to properly maintain your yard or property. Of course in this example I'm assuming you didn’t intentionally cut that tree to damage your neighbor’s house. If it were an intentional act (intending to do damage to the neighbor’s property), it would be excluded from coverage. It seems to me that the flaw in this argument is that your homeowner’s policy does not insure your neighbor’s property (nor the lake) and no one is responsible for acts of nature.
As much as society these days likes to view insurance companies (much like governments) as being some endless vault of money, they unfortunately are not. They could not afford to extend coverage to do what you are asking without first taking significant rate increases.
BTW- If you feel like you don’t pay enough for insurance already, I’ll be very happy to write you a much more expensive policy ;)
|
| Name: |
wix
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Nope
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2011 11:16:31 AM
|
Everytime an insurance company loses a lawsuit to a customer over coverage, every insurance company immediately writes an exclusion for that coverage. Bunch of low life thieves. Agents may be ok.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
B-Cuz
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2011 12:04:32 PM
|
They will pay you for what you insured...your boat.
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
B-Cuz
|
|
Date:
|
5/13/2011 1:56:39 PM
|
well I am not sure what you are trying to say. But I know this.
I once owned a boat in Galveston. It was washed onto the property of another.
My insurance company paid for the total loss of the boat and paid to have it removed from the other man's property.
|
| Name: |
roswellric
-
|
|
| Subject: |
B-Cuz
|
|
Date:
|
5/16/2011 11:29:22 AM
|
Well I'm not really sure what's in my boat policy. I guess I should read it. I would think that if your boat sank in 100 ft of water the cost to raise and dispose of it would be pretty high. I wouldn't be suprised to find that to be an exclusion in the policy.
|
|
New Post
Search
Coffeeville Lake Topics Forum
Reply
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Coffeeville Lake
Login
|
Home
