Insurance companies and the media tend to take the position that people who don't buy flood insurance in flood regions sort of get what they deserve. However, what about when a flood happens in an area that is not deemed a flood risk, such as Atlanta?
Maybe you live in an area that has never been flooded before.
What if a flood hit and you didn't carry flood insurance? Are you totally at fault? Or, were you being a responsible homeowner by carrying other types of insurance that were more likely to hit in your area, such as fire, quake, theft, perhaps you were even damage from high winds and rain storms.
But what if you just weren't covered for non-stop raining that went on for a week and then caused massive flooding?
What if the damage was not caused by the rain falling on your home, but by the massive runoff that then flooded your home?
What if the flooding was exacerbated because the area where you live had "flourished" and the additional cement and roadways that covered more and more soil caused rain runoff to not get as easily absorbed into the ground thus reducing the risk of flooding?
Is it "fair" if an insurance company happily ensures denser and denser population growth but then denies responsibility for the resulting greater and greater flood probability from rain running off of paved over earth?
Or, can the insurance company argue that because an area was absolutely considered not likely to flood, that the flood insurance policy was soooo cheap it was affordable by all?
If you have a flood insurance experience please contribute an answer in the comments section.
President Kennedy’s Assassination Was a Zionist Coup
1 minute ago
