Flooding is separate from typical US home insurance and many homeowners are not adequately covered

As millions of US residents begin working to file insurance claims on their homes in the aftermath of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, many could be denied, particularly if their homes were damaged by flooding.

A quirk in the US home insurance market is that flood insurance is separate from typical home insurance, which usually covers wind damage from hurricanes but not flooding. Homeowners must purchase flood insurance separately if they want their homes protected against flooding.

And many don’t. In some areas where Hurricane Helene hit the hardest, less than 1% of homes had flood insurance when the storm hit. In Buncombe county in North Carolina, home to Asheville, only 0.9% of homes had flood insurance, according to data from the Insurance Information Institute.

The number of people with flood insurance in Florida, which was hit by Hurricane Milton two weeks after parts of the state were battered by Helene, is higher than in other parts of the country. But still, the take-up is low. In Sarasota county, which took a direct hit from Milton, just 23% of residents have flood insurance.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      To be fair… They would have been happy to have sold these people food insurance. How many would have purchased it even if they knew more about it? How keen are you to listen to your insurance company trying to “upsell you shit you don’t need?”

    • OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Insurance companies have a conflict of interest inherent in their business model. They make money by taking your money up front and then paying you back as little as possible at a later date. Any way to weasel out of paying up, especially in a big event like a hurricane, is a huge money saver for them. And most people are desperate. Their house is gone. They aren’t in a position where they can argue and sit on the phone for hours and work it out.

      • IHawkMike@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        1 day ago

        And then, even if they do pay out, they just jack up your rates to make it all back. That’s if they don’t just drop your coverage completely.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        Also as soon as they pay you out they either jack up the rates to recover what you paid or drop you entirely as you’re no longer profitable. It’s such a massive conflict of interest

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        They make money by taking your money up front and then paying you back as little as possible at a later date.

        That’s not entirely the case. Typically, there is a lag (of a few years) between the payment of premiums and the paying out of claims. Insurance companies invest the premiums in the meantime and profit off the interest/gains from these investments (called the “float”). Well-run (and well-invested) insurers can actually collect less in premiums than they pay out in claims and still be profitable.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      We need some kind of ACA for regular insurance, where unless people are literally building in a swamp or the bottom of a crater near a lake/river they should be just automatically covered.

      • huginn@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        70
        ·
        1 day ago

        Florida is uninsurable, that’s kinda the issue.

        There’s a reason so many big insurance companies have left Florida. And honestly I don’t really want even more Federal money going to rebuild in the most common path of ever rising hurricane intensity.

        I want Federal funds set aside to move people out of Florida in homes elsewhere for those who want it. If you want to rebuild your house in the path of the hurricane you can do it on your own dime.

        • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 day ago

          A good use of money and imminent domain. A one time payment to a person and relocating them is also something the US government has experience doing, especially in Florida. Can you imagine the irony of doing it to the white folks who took over the region?

          But seriously, it is an actual good idea. It would save billions in the long run and would be a good use of effort to reduce the risk of more people going broke from random weather.

        • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Not sure how we relocate basically everyone in the South though. And what about tornado alley, do we move all those people also? And then you have wild fires and earthquakes, do we move all of California also? I get what you are saying, but getting millions of people to move states or across the country isn’t a simple thing. And what do we do with all the then empty previously “high valued” real estate? I do think we ultimately have to do something as global warming continues to cause humans issues at what seems like an accelerated rate, but we also have an alarming number of people that do not want to address it (or that even deny it happening).

          • Billiam@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            And what about tornado alley, do we move all those people also?

            What the fuck about it?

            According to NOAA, the total cost of property damage for all tornadoes in 2022 was $700 million.

            The damage cost from just Helene is estimated to be $47 billion.

            Hurricanes are significantly more destructive than tornadoes.

            There’s no place on earth that doesn’t suffer from natural disasters, and it’s foolish to compare hurricanes to the rest. Wildfires can be mitigated somewhat, and earthquakes aren’t predictable, neither of which are true about hurricanes. But hurricanes are going to get more destructive and more frequent as the climate warms, so rebuilding where they’re going to predictably continue to hit is just foolish.

            And what do we do with all the then empty previously “high valued” real estate?

            What about that too? If people want to continue to build on the path of hurricanes, let them. Just stop using taxpayer money to bail them out.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 day ago

            Not sure how we relocate basically everyone in the South though. And what about tornado alley, do we move all those people also? And then you have wild fires and earthquakes, do we move all of California also? I get what you are saying, but getting millions of people to move states or across the country isn’t a simple thing. And what do we do with all the then empty previously “high valued” real estate?

            From your previous post, your answer to your question is: You don’t move them. Instead you skyrocket the rates of insurance on the rest of the nation so that people can continuously have their houses in high risk area destroyed and rebuilt while the rest of the country pays for it. This is what an “ACA for home insurance” would do.

            A more realistic approach would be to change the building codes to accommodate specific natural disasters for that geography. You want to build a house in the woods? Now you need a significant fire break around the house and need to build the house out of fire resistant materials if you want coverage. This is discussion of building regulation changes is already occurring. Same thing for houses in hurricane areas. If you want to build there, you have to build houses that will survive there and not be destroyed by the inevitable conditions.

            None of this large transition is completed overnight, but it has to start happening now. What we have now is unsustainable.

            • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              Whoa whoa whoa, building codes? That’s just costly red tape! How will builders see ever increasing profit margins with all this government bureaucracy?! Remove the building codes entirely, let the Free MarketTM do an invisible handshake with Jesus, and the rest will take care of itself /s

              • RBWells@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                20 hours ago

                New houses are required to be built to code for hurricane force wind here, the “post-Andrew” building code is good. Most of us don’t have new houses though, my house is from the 1940s, and the one I moved from is 100 years old this year.

                We do have building code, what we don’t have is anyone willing to say no to developers. Sprawl, less land to absorb water. I see houses being built on seasonal wetlands, they fill them and raise 'em then the rest of the neighborhood floods in the rainy season. Nobody should be able to do that.

                • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  18 hours ago

                  Nobody should be able to do that.

                  Restricting freedoms too?! You must be one uhv them commi an-tee-fah immigrants takin’ up all our jobs and unemployment benefits! Stay away from our cats! … unless they belong to childless women, then it’s fair game! /S

          • huginn@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            Climate disasters are not affecting the world equally everywhere. Hurricanes are far and away the most destructive climate related disaster and they disproportionately affect Florida of all US states

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              Hurricanes are far and away the most destructive climate related disaster and they disproportionately affect Florida of all US states

              It would say drought would be a climate related disaster more destructive than hurricanes.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          It’d probably be excellent to deny claims for anyone intending to rebuild instate and make it clear to those that do that they’re fucked.

      • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 day ago

        There’s a UK scheme called Flood Re that does this kind of thing. If you’re more than a certain probability of flooding, you need to go with an insurer that’s backed by the government’s reinsurance policy.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          That’s basically how US flood insurance works. The entire country is mapped out in flood zones based on a every 100 year occurrence. If you’re in the zone you’re required to buy insurance… but it’s bullshit. They have a bunch of inland people paying the same rate as the people’s houses that are on the coast and flood every 5 to 10 years.

    • Tyrangle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Private insurance used to offer flood insurance like 100 years ago, but to stay in business they had to raise premiums to a point where no one could realistically afford it (which is to say that living in a flood zone is not financially feasible for most people). The government had to step in with their own flood insurance program, which was tied to regulation intending to minimize the risk of flooding in at-risk zones so that premiums could remain affordable. Even these measures haven’t been sufficient to keep the program from running out of money, and we’ve been subsidizing it with taxpayer bailouts to keep it afloat.

      All this is to say that private insurance is literally incapable of insuring against flood damage, so you can’t blame them for any of this. If you want to blame someone, blame Trump for rolling back standards that would have allowed FEMA to consider climate change in their risk models.

      • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        For private insurance, the key is “to stay in business with huge profits” for the gov version, it’s politics of course, which you point out. They could easily fund it.

      • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is an actual logical take. Don’t live in a flood prone area if you don’t take adequate measures to protect your investments. That’s the customers/citizens responsibility. They aren’t blameless.

        Hurricanes aren’t just a climate change issue. They’ve existed in the Florida area long before anyone settled it and many were MUCH more destructive in the past.

        My family is from FL. Guess where I don’t live. My house is nice and dry (so is all of their’s but that’s because they got lucky and weren’t directly hit).

        Also, read and understand what insurance you actually have. Can’t understand the legalese? Then ask the agent what you are covered for and what you aren’t. It’s really not that hard but some people would rather blame others instead of taking personal responsibility.

        I had a partially flooded basement due to a rough monsoon season last year, one window well backed up, and I ended up doing all the work myself since I don’t have flood insurance either (where I live it’s super rare). I’m not blaming anyone but myself for that.

        • ramble81
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think you’re missing the part where places flooded that have never flooded before. Places that never even saw a hurricane. Unless you plan on moving everything to the tops of mountains, or the middle of an empty plain, anything can flood when enough water hits it.

          • QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            I’m not missing that. Florida is barely above sea level. I’m not talking about inland North Carolina here. That was truly nuts for all.

    • tootoughtoremember@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      23 hours ago

      That would require good governance, appropriate oversight, and consumer activism. Unfortunately Florida man has no interest in these things.