Sandy wasn't a Hurricane

I don't know what you guys are bitching about, I have it from a very reliable source that Sandy wasn't a Hurricane.

Yeah right!

If the Governor of NY says it ain't so then he must be right.

Should have just taken a page from North Carolina's book and made it illegal for hurricanes to hit the state beforehand

It was not expected to make landfall as a hurricane, and according to the meteorologists, it did as expected and not only followed the forecast track, it also lost all tropical characteristics while it was still out to sea. So yeah, the insurance companies can eat E36 M3.

I once had my insuror refuse to pay for damage to my flooded office after Hurricane Charley because they said the damage was not caused by the hurricane, it was caused by rising water, which meant I had to file on my flood insurance... and then my flood insurance refused to pay because the water was not high enough for long enough to constitute a flood. Ironically, both of them forwarded my claims to FEMA, even though I never asked for or collected any money from FEMA, and I had to endure a couple years of annoying FEMA follow-up and being listed on the web along with the thousands of others who tried to "scam" FEMA after the hurricane by filing claims.

Margie

lots of shrugging of shoulders already with this im sure. although sandy may not have been hurricane force, the policy usually is for "named storms" like a tropical storm or hurricane. this is just going to make everyones rates skyrocket after this because the companies are going to see much more risk in NY if the governor can declare that homeowners don't have to go by what the policy says.

So a state can modify the terms of a contract between a company and individual without either party's consent? Sounds like a good idea.

The opposite happened down here with Tropical Storm Gaston a few years ago. Certain, er, high brow homeowners disovered that damages to their properties were not covered unless there was a hurricane, so Gaston thanks to 'post storm analysis' (yeah, right) got posthumously upgraded to a Cat 1 storm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Gaston_(2004)

Reuters has a better explanation: Sandy was classified as a post-tropical cyclone by the time it made landfall, which apparently should not trigger the higher deductible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/01/us-storm-sandy-deductibles-idUSBRE8A010420121101

Really, move along, there's no conspiracy here. Our weather has very in-depth coverage of tropical systems, and we knew days before it hit that Sandy would not be a hurricane at landfall. Also, just to quell your remaining urges toward lunacy, systems are routinely forecast as to when they will lose tropical characteristics. Like, every time.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Really, move along, there's no conspiracy here. Our weather has very in-depth coverage of tropical systems, and we knew days before it hit that Sandy would not be a hurricane at landfall. Also, just to quell your remaining urges toward lunacy, systems are routinely forecast as to when they will lose tropical characteristics. Like, every time. Margie

To be fair, the original linked article was not very clear as to why the governor was telling the insurance companies that they could not invoke the named storm deductibles, just that he had said so and that was it. the Reuters article was much more clear as to the why and how.

One more example of the media blowing things all out of proportion. Even today they are talking about all the damage HURRICANE Sandy did to NY & the surrounds.

I had not seen the Reuters article or any other article calling the storm anything but a hurricane when I read the original article. And, as someone else mentioned, the article just presented it as what I would call a scam by the Governor. Is he up for reelection this year?

Of course, if it had hit as a hurricane, your insurer wouldn't hesitate to flip the entire state the bird and refuse to pay anything. Or sink into the wind/water damage vortex long enough to drain the peons dry. State Farm did that after Katrina here in MS.

DoctorBlade wrote: Of course, if it had hit as a hurricane, your insurer wouldn't hesitate to flip the entire state the bird and refuse to pay anything. Or sink into the wind/water damage vortex long enough to drain the peons dry. State Farm did that after Katrina here in MS.

Yup. That's why I have no sympathy for the insurers who now find themselves screwed on a technicality. Been on the other side of that coin myself.

Margie

Was reading something elsewhere on this subject. This part surprised me...

"What is paid by one insurer could differ from another insurer and could even differ from one address to another. Also, every adjuster stated that in past storms/hurricanes of this magnitude involving so many states and policyholders, that the policy contracts were not followed. Insurers paid for many things not included in the policy contract and waived deductibles in many instances, liberalized exclusions, enhanced coverage, etc. Adjusters feel this will be the case with this storm and that some policyholders will receive far more than their policy contract states they will - previous actions on prior claims substantiate what the adjuster's anticipate."

I wonder if some of the fires where in response to a knee jerk reaction to "" I am not covered for flood "

Karl La Follette wrote: I wonder if some of the fires where in response to a knee jerk reaction to "" I am not covered for flood "

i doubt it, fires are common when hurricanes make landfall, gas lines break and get ignited by shorting power lines. fire crews can't get to them due to the flooding and they basically have to watch them burn. there was a boat yard that went up similarly in Galveston during Ike, and the fire dept couldn't get past the floodwaters to put it out, and just about the whole yard burned.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: Really, move along, there's no conspiracy here. Our weather has very in-depth coverage of tropical systems, and we knew days before it hit that Sandy would not be a hurricane at landfall. Also, just to quell your remaining urges toward lunacy, systems are routinely forecast as to when they will lose tropical characteristics. Like, every time. Margie

Has there EVER been a case of a full hurricane hitting New England then? Considering this was supposedly one of the largest storms ever, it seems unlikely.

If so, they why would they put a hurricane exclusion in a policy where hurricanes effectively cannot happen?

Clearly the weather that hit New England was the result of a hurricane even it if wasn't a hurricane at the time. Seems like some pretty seriously loose terminology for an insurance policy (perhaps it is more explicitly stated).

Yeah, systems make it to Newfoundland and beyond while still retaining tropical features, but that usually happens earlier in the season, when waters are cooler and there's less cool, dry air to wrap into and disrupt the cyclone.

Living in Florida, you get to track a lot of storms

Margie

Oh, and the insurance terminology says "named storms." That's because the nomenclature switches to "the remnants of so-and-so" once the systems become extratropical.

Margie

I'll have to check my policy here in Michigan to see if I'm covered for hurricanes. I know I'm not covered in case of a nuclear attack. Somebody got paid to write that language.

My hurricane and flood insurance is living in a place that doesn't get hurricanes or floods.

We just pay for it in snow and salt...

From the subject title I thought we were going to have a Rosie O'Donnell moment...

carguy123 wrote: One more example of the media blowing things all out of proportion. Even today they are talking about all the damage HURRICANE Sandy did to NY & the surrounds.

I'm living "the media". You're wrong. They've been painfully accurate about this. If I hear "Super-storm Sandy" one more time I'll puke.

Please make this thread die. As I'm fond of saying- they still run The Newshour on PBS. You're not watching. I get the over-nights. Stop bitching about "the media". It is what you make it.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/us/tropical-weather-sandy/index.html

"Though no longer a hurricane, "post-tropical" superstorm Sandy packed a hurricane-sized punch as it slammed into the Jersey Shore on Monday, killing at least 11 people from West Virginia to North Carolina and Connecticut."

That was on the 30th.

I'm just furious with the local media here regarding Sandy. I fully respect and feel sorrow for the massive devastation it caused in other areas, but the local stations here in Pittsburgh tried to play it off as the worst thing since the Battle of Gettysburg. Even ME... mister pragmatic called my homeowner's insurance company to make sure my last payment was received.

There was even a NWS spokesman who said he didn't want to sensationalize things, but there could be deadly winds in excess of 40-60 mph. Really? I've flown kites in winds like that at the beach. Regardless, we had one profiteering guy come into our Home Depot and buy all 27 generators we had. I had one day with 67 phone calls asking about renting generators, and we sold out of D batteries, flashlights, sump pumps, and first aid kits by the Friday before the storm came in.

Here in the 'burgh the highest winds we saw were sustained 20 mph and occasional gusts to 40 mph, and that was for VERY brief periods. The only power outages I heard of was for about 1/2 mile of road east of town because one branch fell off a tree. My weather report for the last week goes like this: One day of moderate rain with a breeze followed by 6 days of dead calm and light drizzle.

Isn't that like any fall/winter day here in PA? Was that really cause for inciting panic, hoarding, and profiteering?