re: #384 Dark_Falcon

I think lawhawk has a point, though, Obdi. Government agencies are vulnerable to public pressure, so orders might come down to not screen claims too closely or to pay out claims of flood damage that were actually wind damage. Or you could just political pressure to pay out have the good old-fashioned fraudulent claims (New York is much cleaner than it once was, but any big city will have a few corrupt officials).

So the choices for abuse are:
a) all wind damage claims, plus some that should be just water damage; or
b) no water damage claims, and some wind damage wrongfully denied.

There are no perfect solutions. The choices for error are too much or too little, and we strive to minimize the error either way. Me, provided we do indeed strive to minimize, I prefer the thought of an asshole getting undeserved coverage over a family out on the streets.