Again, Bonnie, FEMA does not give away money. It gives loans and grants.

Give it up. Go to Starbucks and invest in a tall cup of java.

TandooriGirl, to me "grants" ARE gifts............... from the government. But I will have a Mocha Latte, thanks! ;;)

Flood and Wind coverage must be different in different places. If a storm blows off my roof and I suffer water damage from the rain, my flood insurance will NOT pay it, it is up to my homeowner's. Flood only covers "rising water" in fact. If it rains so hard that water builds up in my parking lot and runs through my ground floor -- that is even homeowner's, not part of the flood insurance. Flood insurance won't cover it. This is from the voice of experience!!!

We have friends in Port Charlotte duking it out with their insurance company right now for that very reason.

GoTravel...if something makes a hole in your roof and water pours in the roof hole, that water damage is covered by your homeowners because the loss was <i>caused by</i> wind initially. If the water rises from areas surrounding your house however, seeps in and causes damage, that would be excluded under homeowners, and covered only under a separate flood insurance policy. These aspects don't vary from state to state, and most everyone has the universal HO3 policy. Likewise water entering through a window that was <i>broken</i> by wind first is a loss caused by wind and the resulting interior water damage is covered under the HO3. Part of my claims experience was in New Orleans and this was an issue we learned rather thoroughly in that swamp, but I've seen the same wording applied to every state in which we've lived. Hurricane Camille which struck MS was our territory in New Orleans as well. It was extremely difficult to determine the exact cause of the loss in many of those claims. Did the house blow apart first or did the water come and knock it down first. The former is covered under HO3. A pipe breaks and floods your house...covered under HO3, not flood insurance. Er...the damage caused by the pipe is covered, but the pipe itself is not.

Bonniebroad, I'm clueless about FEMA regulations, had even thought all of it was a loan until a couple of days ago. Seems to me that living without insurance would be too huge a risk to under take (or at least for someone of average intelligence)--there are too many other named perils an HO3 insures against to risk going without...fire, lightning, wind, hail, smoke, theft, vandalism, falling objects, personal liability etc etc to name a few--collectively all of them are far, far, far more likely to cause a loss than an event which would qualify one for FEMA grants. Or so you'd think....

I have friends doing the same thing in Daytona because the wind blew their roof off but the insides were not covered.

I can't believe how much time we're spending discussing people who don't have flood insurance, when there are tens of thousands more people who don't have any health insurance. I'll repeat what I said before. The chances of getting ill are far greater than the chances of a hurricane or major flood. Why aren't people even more concerned that taxpayers pay out millions for all the people who don't have any health insurance???

Just goes to show you need to read your insurance policy carefully, and also be sure you are with a company with a good reputation.

Bonniebroad, your broader concern is public policy that allows for or supports private development in at-risk areas. This is not really about a couple living it up in a mobile home park in Florida. It sounds mean-spirited in that context, but the issue behind your concerns are legitimate. Unfortunately, private developers make a fortune at the expense of society sometimes, building in dangerous areas. What you are actually calling for, is more government control over private development, because, once people are living in dangerous areas, the public cannot stand by and watch while people are made homeless and commerce is disrupted.

OO, I must need to reread my policy. The way my agent explained was there was a fine line between water coming up and water coming down and the difficulty in determining what was what.

My head hurts.

Patrick, as far as health insurance goes, my yearly deductable is $2,500. I can talk to you all day long about that but not having at least major medical is not smart.

My parent's suffered extenisive damage from Charley. They had the insurance they could buy, and the adjuster was there already with the grim news that thay have plenty damage that is not covered. Just as when I was in LA I was simply unable to get adequate earthquake coverage, insurers simply do not necessarlily offer adequate coverage.

FEMA came around to visit my parents and took their information, but told them that they most likely would not be eligible for FEMA assistance. As they understand it, they have too much income to really qualify for anything. They were told they could be reimbursed for a generator if they bought one, but they already own one. But some of their neighbors did not and had to buy one. As far as I know, there is no insurance to cover power outages.

Fema will cover the insurance deductibles for some people, but as my parents undersatnd it, you must meet certain income requirements. As my parents understand, the grants are available for those who qualify as low and moderate income and emergency housing expenses are covered for those who qualify. Low interest loans are available. BTW, the emergency housing assistance will most likely consist of moving small mobile homes into the area. Not exactly luxury digs.

As a nation, we provide more in tax incentives to large corporations than we do to assist those who are less fortunate. Providing the workign poor and fixed-incopme elderly with some disaster relief is the leat of our worries. If you are truly worried about Federal spending, ask if they have the found missing 1 billion dollars in we have sent to Iraq and that has yet to be accounted for, or why we are providng health care for Iraqis when it is further out of reach for many Americans now that than ever before.

As I stated above, I am happy to see assistance go to the truly needy, have absolutely no problem with that! It's the not-so-truly needy who irk me......... and I believe that's my last word on the subject. (And from the different stories I'm hearing here, I believe there are variables from state-to-state, as to what various policies cover.)

FEMA only steps in when there is a disaster declared as such by the President in collaboration with the Governor of a state. These are EMERGENCY situations. There are rigid rules and funds are highly competitive, going only to the neediest. So rest assured, Bonnie, that no one is stealing from you. Now go have another cup of coffee.

Tandoori Girl, sorry but I don't consider you the last word on the subject..... I'm very capable of researching the subject, and am not happy with what I'm finding. (Wasn't it you who didn't understand the meaning of a grant? And how would you know who is, and who is not, stealing from the government, in this situation?) There are always those who take advantage of a situation, and this is no different. It's a shame that some who don't really need help use resources that could be used for those who do!

The policies are the same from state to state, HO1, 2 or 3, HO3 being the most common by faaaar. I recall only seeing one insured loss that wasn't an HO3. What may be at play is the interpretation of the policy, not from state to state, but perhaps an agent who is far more versed in selling policies than in servicing claims, or an adjuster who plain doesn't know what he's doing. Happens--not often, but it does! :) Pull your policy out and know your coverages--policies have been rewritten to be more easily understood. Then if you don't agree with an adjuster's interpretation after digesting the policy yourself, argue argue argue, and if all else fails, find an atty. Hush...I didn't say that!! :)

bonniebroad, I think you might want to throw a little Irish whisky in your cup of coffee.

OO, you may be right about interpretations by agents. I had an agent with Allstate who advised me to get flood insurance for the area I live in. Then a State Farm agent refused to sell me flood insurance, saying it was a waste of money where I live. Go figure.... I'm getting a headache, and very glad I'm not a Floridian. :-)

Orcas, thanks anyway!!!!! We'll make that a Baileys Irish Cream along with the coffee! ;;)

&quot; It's a shame that some who don't really need help use resources that could be used for those who do!&quot;

I move that we all stop travelling, and put the money that we spend on trips into our retirement funds so that we can send back some of our Social Security benefits.

Do I hear a second?

Okay (haha, I'm the last word on this).

Yes you did OO and I know a good one! LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!