Talk:National Flood Insurance Program

Renters

• "Flood insurance for contents is available only to the property owner, which leads to uninsured losses for renters and demands for aid." This statement is false. The same contents coverage homeowners can purchase is available to renters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.252.64.8 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC-5)

Flood insurance market

Why won't insurance companies provide this coverage through an endorsement? What is the history behind that? Are the insurance companies looking to price flood into the homepolicy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.29.204.27 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC-5)

I believe at the time of the original legislation, there were no insurance companies writing policies or endorsements covering flood losses. In certain catastrophic events, the flood losses were compensated using disaster recovery funds provided by the predecessor agency to FEMA. Congress created the NFIP to subsidize flood coverage in exchange for local governments implementing floodplain development regulations designed to prevent future development in flood-prone areas. The controversial part comes in the 'grandfather' clause allowing pre-existing structures to buy the coverage without complying with the new floodplain development regulations.

I hope I have that right...more research is required, and obviously would be a great addition to the article.--G1076 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That more or less explains the program. Of course, the premiums are higher for the 'grandfathered' structures that do not comply. The reason that homeowner's insurance companies do not cover the risk, basically, is that it is almost impossible for insurance companies to accurately project the risk of a flood or the amount of damage it caused. So, either the premiums were often needlessly high, or the companies couldn't afford to pay out the claims. Amerikevin 20:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Amerikevin

"Needlessly high"? It seems instead that since floods are so commonplace in the floodplain, insurance companies needed to charge high premiums to cover their losses. Perhaps a section could be added on how insurance companies handled these sorts of claims prior to the fed. gov. stepping in.--Gloriamarie 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be 'impossible' to accurately project the risk, though covering it could cause a threat to an insurer's continued existance. Most insurance works because the risks covered are relatively independent - The likelihood that Bob has a car accident is independent of the likelihood that Carl has one. With a flood, every property in the affected region is likely to suffer a loss. The 'all-or-nothing' nature of the peril makes insurance companies loathe to cover it. Schoop (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a great deal of criticsim in the article and on this talk page. What does not seem to be understood is that some of the most economically important activities such as farming and shipping take place on or near places subject to flooding. In other words, if everyone lived up in the hills sure there would be less loss to flood damage, but we can't farm, fish, or ship on a mountaintop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.89.149 (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits

Updated statistics in a couple of places and re-wrote line about taxpayers by reading cited source Climate Progress. Deleted Biggert-Discussion in first since that topic was covered more thoroughly in second section. Andromedahpg (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A good bit of this article is non-neutral POV

Someone's doing a lot of ax-grinding here, supposedly banned by Wikipedia policy. The purported information about encouraging rentals is especially at least subjective, but not solely that text. An encyclopedia article is for presenting facts, not mounting arguments. A good deal of editing for neutrality and objectivity by someone knowledgeable is called for. 96.42.57.164 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)