RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene

RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Slavehandsome -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/29/2011 3:09:31 PM)
If you want to know the truth about Irene, Ivan, Katrina, or any other hurricane that somehow manages to avoid Cuba but devastates the U.S., study the legality of Scalar Technology.

tazzygirl -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/29/2011 3:17:34 PM)
Here is mine.... On November 27, 2006, Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr. issued his long awaited decision as to insurance coverage for water damage and flooding following the levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina.[1] The insurers argued that there was no coverage for the damage because the policies excluded coverage for water damage, including flood. The insurers contended the inundation of water in the City of New Orleans caused by the failure of the levees excluded water damage. The insureds, on the other hand, maintained that the term “flood” was ambiguous and, therefore, coverage should be provided. The insureds further argued that because the third-party negligence of the Orleans Levee District was the efficient, proximate cause of the subsequent flooding of plaintiffs’ homes, their policies should provide coverage. In an eighty-four page decision, Judge Duval found it depends on the specific policy language as to whether unnatural flood is excluded Several different policies of insurance were involved in this case. The court examined each policy separately and found that coverage was afforded under some, but not all, depending on the language of the flood exclusion. In summary, the court found that the policies issued by insurers that contained the ISO water damage exclusion provided coverage for the losses sustained by the insureds, but that the policies issued by State Farm and the Hartford did not. http://www.rkmc.com/Louisiana-Judge-Rules-on-Katrina-Insurance-Coverage-Cases.htm

MileHighM -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/29/2011 3:52:58 PM)
Hmmm.... Maybe I am the slow child here and haven't noticed any similar posts.... Ever notice something about FightDirecto.. He starts a thread, usually partisan hackish, sometimes not, but controversial none the less. Then, he almost never adds to it. He never defends his OP, he just likes to kick the hornet's nest so to speak. Even the most maniacal whack jobs on here rarely resort to drive-by argumentation. I think it is time to just start the ignoring campaign, or at least keep responses to calling him a Troll. As much fun as some of these discussions become, if I see FD as the thread starter, from now on, I think I am going to have to just look away. Gonna have to post this on another thread or two as well.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/29/2011 4:02:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Here is mine.... On November 27, 2006, Judge Stanwood R. Duval Jr. issued his long awaited decision as to insurance coverage for water damage and flooding following the levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina.[1] The insurers argued that there was no coverage for the damage because the policies excluded coverage for water damage, including flood. The insurers contended the inundation of water in the City of New Orleans caused by the failure of the levees excluded water damage. The insureds, on the other hand, maintained that the term “flood” was ambiguous and, therefore, coverage should be provided. The insureds further argued that because the third-party negligence of the Orleans Levee District was the efficient, proximate cause of the subsequent flooding of plaintiffs’ homes, their policies should provide coverage. In an eighty-four page decision, Judge Duval found it depends on the specific policy language as to whether unnatural flood is excluded Several different policies of insurance were involved in this case. The court examined each policy separately and found that coverage was afforded under some, but not all, depending on the language of the flood exclusion. In summary, the court found that the policies issued by insurers that contained the ISO water damage exclusion provided coverage for the losses sustained by the insureds, but that the policies issued by State Farm and the Hartford did not. http://www.rkmc.com/Louisiana-Judge-Rules-on-Katrina-Insurance-Coverage-Cases.htm youve got it backwards..thank you for posting MY proof. The insurance companies in question didnt succed in not paying claims that were valid.

tazzygirl -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/29/2011 4:09:15 PM)
The very fact that they attempted is enough, willbe. And how many succeeded in not paying out to those who were entitled but were convinced they were not? Get off your high horse. The truth is insurance comapnies attempt tp not pay out claims all the time. The fact that they get caught sometimes is just what they consider the price of doing business. Or are you going to try and defend insurance companies now?

mnottertail -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 7:36:04 AM)
He always has, he peddles the shit, yanno certified financial planner (insurance peddler).

Fightdirecto -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 11:39:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM Hmmm.... Maybe I am the slow child here and haven't noticed any similar posts.... Ever notice something about FightDirecto.. He starts a thread, usually partisan hackish, sometimes not, but controversial none the less. Then, he almost never adds to it. He never defends his OP, he just likes to kick the hornet's nest so to speak. Even the most maniacal whack jobs on here rarely resort to drive-by argumentation. Actually, I have been "on the road" because of my profession (I have been working as a professional jazz musician since retiring from the film & TV business - 25+ years as a stuntman and my body told me to "Quit!") and haven't had access to a computer until today. But, yes, sometimes I do start a discussion just for the sake of starting a discussion - because I enjoy discussions and idea exchange.

popeye1250 -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 12:14:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity link=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/08/29/limbaugh_cost_of_irene_pales_in_comparison_to_cost_of_hurricane_obama.html]RUSH: Cost of Irene 'Pales in Comparison' to Hurricane Obama...[/link] Yes, because 'Rush Limbaugh' has always displayed such a 'neutral' and 'unbias' outlook on the performance of Mr. Obama for the past three years, right? Joether, it sounds as though Rush Limbaugh has gone easy on Oblunder. He's been an absolute disaster for the last three years! Telling car companies how to build cars, dictating what kind of light bulbs you can have in your house, getting us involved in yet another war to the tune of $1B a day, comming up with a health care plan that no-one wants, surrounding himself with Wall Street insiders and then using U.S. Taxpayer Dollars to bail out big banks, brokerage houses, insurance cos. and making us Taxpayers take the hit instead of those cos. stockholders! No-one is "too big to fail!" Why do we even bother to have bankruptcy laws on the books? And then we have Freddie and Fannie Mac and all the corruption with Barny Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd. What's Obunder ever done in his life besides go to school on the Taxpayer's dime and staple some placards into telephone poles? And didn't he get a "foreign student scholarship" at Harvard or Columbia? What's that all about? And he told us three times in the same speech that there are 57 states. This guy is so fucking stupid that it's impossible to be "neutral" or "unbiased" on him! They'll come out and say that he has a 162 i.q. but Columbia or Harvard won't release his transcripts just like Providence College won't release Patches Kennedy's transcripts. Oblunder wasn't even a very good lawyer and he's never had to meet a payroll and has zero management experience. Boy, I'd never apply to be an Oblunder defender, that has to be the most difficult job in the world!

farglebargle -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 2:45:16 PM)
quote: This guy is so fucking stupid that it's impossible to be "neutral" or "unbiased" on him! What is your opinion of Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, then? I mean, they're blithering idiots who listen to the voices in their head. If Obama pisses you off, they must give you an aneurism.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 2:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl The very fact that they attempted is enough, willbe. And how many succeeded in not paying out to those who were entitled but were convinced they were not? Get off your high horse. The truth is insurance comapnies attempt tp not pay out claims all the time. The fact that they get caught sometimes is just what they consider the price of doing business. Or are you going to try and defend insurance companies now? Insurance companies are businesses that cant stay in business if they don't pay legitimate claims. That they "attempted" is NOT enough, in fact even losing on occasion is not enough, all it means is they drafted the contract so poorly there was ambiguity over coverage. Claims that they attempt to deny claims that are clearly legitimate are total bullshit.

mnottertail -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 2:59:06 PM)
It may be total bullshit, but it does happen and does work, its the modus operandi for some companies.

tazzygirl -> RE: East Coast Tea Partiers & Hurricane Irene (8/30/2011 3:34:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It may be total bullshit, but it does happen and does work, its the modus operandi for some companies. Exactly.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 6 [7]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.027344E-02