Milton rapidly intensified to a Category 5 hurricane late Monday morning.

Within hours, Milton strengthened to a Category 2, then a Category 3, then a Category 4 and finally a Category 5.

Milton now ranks as the third-greatest 24-hour wind speed intensification for a hurricane in the Atlantic Basin. (Records are based on data since the satellite era began in the 1960s.)

    • Today@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      125
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      If your policy covers wind they claim the damage is from water. If your policy covers water, they claim the damage is from wind. If your policy covers both, they claim a hurricane is exempt as an act of god.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        I want to bitch about insurance companies but insurance is for something that is unavoidable.

        All this shit is becoming more and more avoidable.

      • Dogiedog64@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        4 days ago

        Which, to be fair, is really about all they can do. You CANNOT stop a hurricane from obliterating a house. There is NOTHING the average American can do about it except leave and hope it survives.

    • superkret@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      Insurance companies don’t build shit. They just collect money from people, and sometimes give some of it back.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        They’re actually required to give 85% of everything back, so they give back most of it. It seems like Florida is becoming too much of a hassle to insure, though. Some companies have pulled out of florida.

        • _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          5 days ago

          unless they can find a way to screw you over for profit, then they absolutely will no matter how ridiculous the “reasoning”*

          • baldingpudenda@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 days ago

            I believe it was Katrina where the insurance said it was wind damage when you only had flood insurance, but if you’re neighbor only had wind coverage they’d tell them it was water damage.

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              Right storm. Wrong details.

              They (insurance companies) were claiming it as flood/surge damage, even if wind ripped off your roof to let the water inside. Wind was covered, water wasn’t. Companies were sued for trying to blanket deny an area based on one generic engineering report, or denying coverage if flood waters came through after wind destroyed a place. Insurance com0anies don’t typically offer flood insurance to a lot of places and if homeowners want it, they have to buy it through the federal government.

    • Lumilias@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      What insurance companies? They all backed out of Florida years ago. Now it’s state funded home insurance footing the bill.

      • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        4 days ago

        I read a thing recently that insurance companies are getting increasingly skittish all over the country, even places that wouldn’t traditionally be considered risky, because yay, climate change.

        The interesting thing about it was that insurance companies’ insurance is increasingly the thing that’s causing issues, because it’s getting harder for the risk to be spread out. That is to say that insurance companies financially rely on areas with low rates of natural disasters because they end up being a net positive due to insurance premiums and no need for payout. Fewer of these “safe” areas mean the insurance companies struggle to stay solvent and have to rely on their own insurance policies to have their back, but those meta-insurance companies have apparently been historically loud about climate change — probably because besides the government, they’re the ones who have to pony up

        • CainTheLongshot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Here in Missouri, home owners insurance is starting to lose hail damage from coverage. Damn near 90% of the houses around my area have now replaced their roofs, and have the roofing signage out front. It’s almost a running joke now: guessing which house will be next to get one, and counting the company’s signs to see who’s making a killing.

    • Null User Object@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      5 days ago

      If people don’t have the common sense to not build houses in places that are guaranteed to be destroyed by a natural disaster sooner than later, then I shouldn’t have to subsidize their rebuilding costs through my insurance premiums.

        • Null User Object@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          That seems like a perfectly reasonable place to build that’s not obviously at threat from hurricanes. But sometimes shit happens that couldn’t be easily foreseen, and THAT’S what insurance is for.

          My point, however, is that insurance is NOT to make other policy holders foot the expense of someone repeatedly repairing/rebuilding after completely foreseeable/inevitable events.

          To anyone that insists on having a house right on the beach on the Gulf Coast, I say, “Insure thy self.”

      • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Yeah, used to be that insurance costs were almost directly skewed based on risk. But then people were upset that it costed so much to insure some places(the ones that should be prohibitively expensive to insure). And then slowly over time they baked in little increases in price everywhere else to subsidise huge price cuts in those areas to out-compete the companies that put the onus entirely on the people taking risks. Eventually, as it became more and more widespread to do that, it became financially more viable to spread it out rather than have drastically more expensive areas. And now we all have to partially cover people who are taking way more risk than we would.

          • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Forms of communism that mean they are making more money are actually ok by them. They just have to find a different name to call it so they don’t have to say that icky word that gives them feelings.

      • ApatheticCactus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        That or build something that can stand up to being hit. Tall order, but the inner armchair engineer in me thinks it’s like, totally possible.

        • Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I think you forget, building it stronger once would cost 50% more upfront. Better to build it twice, or three times at only 100% cost each time. That way you can be the lowest bidder every time.