Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Insurance shock
#31
Updates greatly appreciated!  Hope it works out well for you.
Reply
#32
"Anybody get hurricane quotes they are willing to share for other than Laulima?"

We pay $415 ($385 + $30 "Fee") for Hurricane insurance with icat. Hawaiian Islands Insurance.

Just noticed while looking at it, 15K deductible. Sheesh, hope we never have hurricane damage...
Reply
#33
(04-24-2024, 12:41 AM)HereOnThePrimalEdge Wrote: so how does that work? If the NWS or the NHC issues a warning/watch/etc for a named storm, the property is not covered by standard wind damage.

Wait.  What? So HOW does that work?
If there is a hurricane watch, which is not a hurricane, and the insured is in:
* the path?
* the cone?
But you have wind damage, even well below 75 mph, you’re not covered?

The cone or path is irrelevant, the standard wind coverage blackout from the storm is based on the property being within the forecast zones because named storms cause severe weather outside the cone.  It's not applicable just to hurricanes, it would be any wind damage caused by a "named storm" impacting the forecast zone as described above.  That includes things like wind damage by tornadoes potentially caused by the storm.  It "could" also include that dead ROD ohia that falls on a roof from a gentle everyday breeze that happened to occur when the REAL effects of the storm are still a hundred miles away.  The ultimate determination would be made by their claims department, and that's where the quality of the insurance company comes into play.  I did ask pointed questions and one of the agents (I've communicated with at least five so far) summarized it this way-  If you don't have earthquake insurance, you're not covered for ground movement regardless of how close or far away you are to an epicenter.  With wind damage potentially caused by a named storm, it's not so black and white, but if you're in the forecast zone of a named storm under a watch/advisory/etc within the hours guidelines described above, you can assume you have no coverage unless told otherwise after the fact by their claims department.
Reply
#34
you can assume you have no coverage unless told otherwise after the fact by their claims department.

“Jesus Coming Soon” unless told otherwise by the people who put up the sign.
Reply
#35
(04-24-2024, 10:47 PM)HereOnThePrimalEdge Wrote: you can assume you have no coverage unless told otherwise after the fact by their claims department.

“Jesus Coming Soon” unless told otherwise by the people who put up the sign.

It was Sir Isaac Newton's conclusion that was unlikely to happen before 2060.  

So if one "trusts the scientist", does "Jesus Coming Soon" refer to eight pound, six ounce, sweet baby Jesus?  Or a grown man with a beard?  Scholars believe Jesus One was crucified at around 33 years old, though some think he was closer to 39.

2060 is only 36 years away.

So if Newton was right, and the sign is referring to bearded Jesus... He may already be here.  Or could be any day now.  I don't mean Puna specifically, but one never knows.  Does he have to come here the same way he did the first time?  Or can he just beam down as an adult?  Because if it's the latter, that sign is going to get pretty dusty if Newton was right.  And our roads still won't be paved.
Reply
#36
I can’t speak for baby Jesus or 30 ish Jesus, but one thing’s for certain, God is coming and boy is SHE pissed!
Reply
#37
The one you speak of is indeed here.

oh and a little levity : )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXedC4qdkgo
Reply
#38
(04-26-2024, 01:00 AM)elepaio pid= Wrote:The one you speak of is indeed here.

Where is he or she?

(04-26-2024, 12:27 AM)terracore Wrote:
(04-24-2024, 10:47 PM)HereOnThePrimalEdge Wrote: you can assume you have no coverage unless told otherwise after the fact by their claims department.

“Jesus Coming Soon” unless told otherwise by the people who put up the sign.

It was Sir Isaac Newton's conclusion that was unlikely to happen before 2060.  

So if one "trusts the scientist", does "Jesus Coming Soon" refer to eight pound, six ounce, sweet baby Jesus?  Or a grown man with a beard?  Scholars believe Jesus One was crucified at around 33 years old, though some think he was closer to 39.

2060 is only 36 years away.

So if Newton was right, and the sign is referring to bearded Jesus... He may already be here.  Or could be any day now.  I don't mean Puna specifically, but one never knows.  Does he have to come here the same way he did the first time?  Or can he just beam down as an adult?  Because if it's the latter, that sign is going to get pretty dusty if Newton was right.  And our roads still won't be paved.

Newton was a bright guy but also very religious. That was the nature of things in the 17th and 18th centuries. His laws of motion still apply today in most situations, but that doesn't mean he knew when Jesus would return, and he certainly didn't show the "person" existed in the first place nor that they would return. That's just religious dogma.
Reply
#39
There's a front page piece in today's HTH about the homeowners insurance issue. Here's a link, but it may be behind a paywall:

https://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/202...operative/

It seems that Greggor Ilagan proposed 10 separated pieces of legislation, none of which went anywhere. I know one shouldn't put all of one's eggs in the same basket, but spreading the impact across 10 bills might not be the best way to focus attention. The article seemed to imply that Ilagan's emphasis was on Lava Zones 1 and 2.

Joy Sanbuenaventura's bill is still alive and is broadly seeking relief, and not specifically for high risk lava areas. Her measure is part of an omnibus bill that is still being haggled over. While there is hope, she didn't sound optimistic.

Meanwhile a group of citizens is working on starting an insurance co-op for Zones 1 and 2. They have a questionnaire at:

mutualmembersinsurance.org
Reply
#40
Puna Sen. Joy San Buenaventura, who co-introduced the measure, said insurance is becoming more expensive statewide, which she attributed to the unusual amount of federally declared disasters in Hawaii over the last few years; which she, in turn, attributed to climate change.

Yep, that lava flow, the big insurance issue that it was, was certainly caused by climate change.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)