California's Fires

Successful bank loans, dead end and productive, illusory n real pig.

http://www.gapvax.com/

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:41:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.

-- Jay Beattie.

Out of curiosity, do U.S. insurance policies contain "Act of God" or
"Force Majeure" clauses?

THAT is what I read in that insurance contract. It was designed to free insurance companies from very large - possibly bankrupting expenses: Force Majeure.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:48:08 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:49:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.

Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!

So what you're saying is that the working man should pay your way instead of you insuring yourself?

No. I said "get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!"

Plus, the working men and women aren't paying my insurance. I don't live in a flood plain and have private P&C insurance, and I'm not receiving any public benefits or commie Social Security and Medicare like you. I'm a true American, unlike the blood-sucking Social Security stealing, Medicare using commie low-life! Cue music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ

So now a perfect normal savings account - Social Security - is commie? Why am I not surprised. I calculated once how much money I had in Social Security and gave it only a 2% return in interest and it turned out that I had enough money in SS to not draw anything extra until I was 95 years old.

To you that is "commie". And since I am now on a normal health insurance I don't use medicare. So I paid into that for no return.

Only financially astute lawyers like yourself think that "Intergovernmental Holdings" is the government's money to spend as they see fit.

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Hmmmm. http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/cali...g-worst-record

Funny you didn't feel the need to look further.

While the total amount of fires this year is about 170,000 acres inb a total of 17 wildfires, those of the Laguna fire in 1970 was 175,000 acres and 382 homes.

Those of 1889 called the Santiago Canyon Fire covered 300,000 acres.

New York had a wild fire covering a half million acres. New Brunswick had one in 1825 that covered three million acres.

But when you can demonstrate a legal mind I suppose you needn't actually know anything.

NASA seems to disagree with you. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on NASA. They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.

Supersmart indeed:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...erature-fraud/

NASA reports 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year.

Over a 50 year period the tidal gauge on the Battery in New York showed the sea level presently lower than it was in 1940.

In San Francisco Bay the tidal gauges used since the 1880's show no sea level changes.

In Seattle again the sea levels are below what they were in 1940.

In Baltimore the sea level is 1 mm below what it was in 1950.

"Every single thing NASA says about sea level is fraudulent. NASA’s own data says that Antarctica ice growth is reducing sea level."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-climate-data/

So you stick with NASA because they're really looking out for you.

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:04:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:48:08 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 2:49:38 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 1:06:28 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 12:47:06 PM UTC-7, duane wrote:
On 18/10/2017 11:41 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.


In most of south Louisiana flood insurance is dictated by statute.. As a
result, most homeowners have regular homeowners insurance and flood
insurance. After most hurricanes people with damage have to deal with
fights between the two where each claims the damage was caused by the
other. Katrine took this to the limit. Dictated by statute doesn't mean
much when the insurance companies want to delay payment. It took the
feds to get most people coverage after Katrina.

There was no rider that I know of saying the companies didn't have to
pay if there was a large disaster. I can't imagine anyone in New
Orleans buying flood insurance under those conditions. But that doesn't
mean the scumbag insurance companies didn't milk every cent they could.

Private market flood insurance is the exception. Most coverage is provided by the feds -- our tax dollars at work ensuring low premium for people who live in harm's way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...urance_Program The scumbag insurance company is FEMA. Drain the swamp! Get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!

So what you're saying is that the working man should pay your way instead of you insuring yourself?

No. I said "get rid of federally subsidized flood insurance!"

Plus, the working men and women aren't paying my insurance. I don't live in a flood plain and have private P&C insurance, and I'm not receiving any public benefits or commie Social Security and Medicare like you. I'm a true American, unlike the blood-sucking Social Security stealing, Medicare using commie low-life! Cue music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzW2ybYFboQ

So now a perfect normal savings account - Social Security - is commie? Why am I not surprised. I calculated once how much money I had in Social Security and gave it only a 2% return in interest and it turned out that I had enough money in SS to not draw anything extra until I was 95 years old.

To you that is "commie". And since I am now on a normal health insurance I don't use medicare. So I paid into that for no return.

Only financially astute lawyers like yourself think that "Intergovernmental Holdings" is the government's money to spend as they see fit.

Read up. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-paid-what-yo/ Your current benefits -- SS and Medicare -- are being paid by current wage earners, i.e., me. I'm supporting you. You are not supporting me. You are a drag on society. I am paying a staggering amount of taxes to support the efforts of the Trump administration because I am a team player! Go Team America! Do you hate the Team?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 10:59:35 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:28:42 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:41:24 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 7:30:03 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 10:25:28 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 7:52:39 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Unfortunately in the Santa Rosa fire Levi Leipheimer's house was burned to the ground. I can only hope that he is solvent enough to repair since I suspect that the insurance companies are going to play the "mass destruction" card and not pay on their policies.

Why would you say that? Assuming any insurer went insolvent, there is the California Insurance Guaranty Association. http://www.caiga.org/ But I doubt that any admitted California insurer is going to go insolvent because of the fires. Most insurers retain only part of the risk anyway, placing the rest with reinsurers. Adjusting claims will be slowed by the number, but anyone insured by a legitimate, admitted insurer probably has nothing to fear.

My sister lives in Santa Rosa and my brother owns property there. I was getting real-time reporting over the weekend. It seems to be improving, although living in the smoke is hard on the lungs.

-- Jay Beattie.

Jay, a long time ago I remember reading my insurance policy and there was a clause in it that said if a high percentage (don't remember what) where destroyed in an area that the insurance policies were null and void.

Fire insurance is the most basic coverage there is, and in most states, the policy form is dictated by statute. I've never seen any policy purporting to cancel retroactively if there were too many losses in a geographic area. There are some assessable policies issued by mutual insurers that allow the insurer to demand additional premiums if reserves are wiped out by large losses. Otherwise, large losses wipe out reserve, trigger reinsurance and/or catastrophe bonds and a lot of other risk-spreading devices.

IMO, the worry is not really the fire loss in wine country but that loss combined with all the storm damage for large P&C carriers like Ace or AIG, although most of those guys left the Florida market or issued policies with the usual exclusions for flood, wind-driven rain, etc. Anyway, its the national loss picture that really matters this year on top of the fire losses. Global warming is going to drive up premium big time.

-- Jay Beattie.

Out of curiosity, do U.S. insurance policies contain "Act of God" or
"Force Majeure" clauses?

THAT is what I read in that insurance contract. It was designed to free insurance companies from very large - possibly bankrupting expenses: Force Majeure.

To answer John's question, property and casualty policies contain all sorts of exclusions. Standard homeowners' policies (HO1/HO2) contain exclusions that could be categorized as "force majeure." See e.g. http://www.indianafairplan.com/UserF...ICY%20FORM.pdf The HO2 is a "named perils" policy meaning that it only insurers against damage caused by specific named perils, and even some damage caused by a named peril is excluded like earth movement, flood, etc. Standard ISO HO policies do not cover earthquakes and flood -- or pestilence or most of the Old Testament plagues. You need a special Old Testament policy for that, probably written by FEMA's captive insurer -- us the tax payers.

Nothing in the policy, however, lets an insurer off the hook because it has suffered huge losses. I'm not aware of any policy issued by an admitted insurer that contains language excusing an insurer from payment because of wide-spread losses, and I doubt that any policy along those lines could get approved by a state insurance regulator.

As a practical matter, however, crushing losses will cause an insurance company to go into insolvency. If the policy is written by an admitted insurer, then the state insurance guaranty association will pick up some of the loss. If the policy is issued by a non-admitted surplus lines or excess insurer like a Lloyds' syndicate or a London market insurer, you're screwed. Lots of Lloyds syndicates have gone belly-up because of lead, asbestos, pollution and other exposures that were not anticipated.

I doubt Tom saw any provision excusing an insurer from payment simply because a lot of insured's had suffered covered losses from a catastrophe --
unless he was dealing with some exotic manuscripted policy from a London or overseas insurer or something that wasn't an insurance policy. Force Majeure clauses are common in transportation contracts, construction contracts and all sorts of other contracts.

Insurance companies manage risks in other ways like careful underwriting and reinsurance.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 10/19/2017 1:34 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Hmmmm. http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/cali...g-worst-record

Funny you didn't feel the need to look further.

While the total amount of fires this year is about 170,000 acres inb a total of 17 wildfires, those of the Laguna fire in 1970 was 175,000 acres and 382 homes.

Those of 1889 called the Santiago Canyon Fire covered 300,000 acres.

New York had a wild fire covering a half million acres. New Brunswick had one in 1825 that covered three million acres.

But when you can demonstrate a legal mind I suppose you needn't actually know anything.

NASA seems to disagree with you. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on NASA. They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.

Supersmart indeed:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...erature-fraud/

NASA reports 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year.

Over a 50 year period the tidal gauge on the Battery in New York showed the sea level presently lower than it was in 1940.

In San Francisco Bay the tidal gauges used since the 1880's show no sea level changes.

In Seattle again the sea levels are below what they were in 1940.

In Baltimore the sea level is 1 mm below what it was in 1950.

"Every single thing NASA says about sea level is fraudulent. NASA’s own data says that Antarctica ice growth is reducing sea level."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-climate-data/

So you stick with NASA because they're really looking out for you.


Peshtigo Wisconsin Fi 1.5 million acres 2400 dead.

Caused by Priuses not expelling enough carbon dioxide probably.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 10/19/2017 4:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/19/2017 1:34 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Hmmmm.
http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/cali...g-worst-record


Funny you didn't feel the need to look further.

While the total amount of fires this year is about 170,000 acres inb a
total of 17 wildfires, those of the Laguna fire in 1970 was 175,000
acres and 382 homes.

Those of 1889 called the Santiago Canyon Fire covered 300,000 acres.

New York had a wild fire covering a half million acres. New Brunswick
had one in 1825 that covered three million acres.

But when you can demonstrate a legal mind I suppose you needn't
actually know anything.

NASA seems to disagree with you.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on
NASA.* They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.

Supersmart indeed:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...erature-fraud/

NASA reports 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year.

Over a 50 year period the tidal gauge on the Battery in New York
showed the sea level presently lower than it was in 1940.

In San Francisco Bay the tidal gauges used since the 1880's show no
sea level changes.

In Seattle again the sea levels are below what they were in 1940.

In Baltimore the sea level is 1 mm below what it was in 1950.

"Every single thing NASA says about sea level is fraudulent. NASA’s
own data says that Antarctica ice growth is reducing sea level."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-climate-data/

So you stick with NASA because they're really looking out for you.


Peshtigo Wisconsin Fi 1.5 million acres 2400 dead.

Jay's "worst fires on record in California" may have meant to exclude
Wisconsin.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:

Hmmmm. http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/10/cali...g-worst-record

Funny you didn't feel the need to look further.

While the total amount of fires this year is about 170,000 acres inb a total of 17 wildfires, those of the Laguna fire in 1970 was 175,000 acres and 382 homes.

Those of 1889 called the Santiago Canyon Fire covered 300,000 acres.

New York had a wild fire covering a half million acres. New Brunswick had one in 1825 that covered three million acres.

But when you can demonstrate a legal mind I suppose you needn't actually know anything.

NASA seems to disagree with you. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ I'll put my money on NASA. They had to be super-smart to fake that whole moon landing thing.

Supersmart indeed:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...erature-fraud/

NASA reports 3.2 mm of sea level rise per year.

Over a 50 year period the tidal gauge on the Battery in New York showed the sea level presently lower than it was in 1940.

In San Francisco Bay the tidal gauges used since the 1880's show no sea level changes.

In Seattle again the sea levels are below what they were in 1940.

In Baltimore the sea level is 1 mm below what it was in 1950.

"Every single thing NASA says about sea level is fraudulent. NASA’s own data says that Antarctica ice growth is reducing sea level."

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/...-climate-data/

So you stick with NASA because they're really looking out for you.

Well, keep in mind... they go home at 5. I worked at Ames for a while. They go home after 8 hours. It's beyond weird. It's freakish, for silicon valley. You can only do so much in a mere 8 hour day.