Why is flood insurance not part of a standard homeowner’s policy?
May 22nd, 2010
There are lots of other risks I can buy a rider for – sewer back-up, earthquake – but not for flood.
What was the original rationale for carving out flood as a risk that would not be handled by private insurers, and to only have the federal government offer insurance for it?
Popular Posts:
- Obama holds Va. backyard health care policy forum
- Appraising a Vintage Car
- My Deed of trust has the wrong property address. Is this covered by the Title insurance?
- Betting Terms Su | Forum Resources
- How can my husband open a life insurance policy?
Tags:
because then every one would pay for it and they will never ever get a flood as their home is too high for waters to reach
Flood, like war and nuclear radiation, is one of those risks where if it DOES happen, it will be to LOTS of houses, and the costs will be extreme. Private insurance companies can’t collect enough money to be able to sell it, and make a profit at it, when it’s added to a homeowners.
See, even the seperate NFIP policy, the majority of the cost is picked up by TAXPAYERS, not the people who buy the policies.
For my Galveston house, the flood insurance actually cost about double what the fire (homeowners) insurance costs. And STILL the taxpayer has to subsidize it.
if you don;t live in a flood prone area, it’s a waste of money and the rates will vary depending on where the house is in respect to local flood dangers – pretty much needs a unique policy just to handle the flooding by itself