|
<br />In regard to coverage, this N.A.I.C. committee is thinking in
<br />terms of a $25,000 to $50,000 maximum protection p:rovision with a $500
<br />deductible feature, and it is also examining the possibility of a 90-10
<br />coinsurance plan. Coverage would include flood as well as surface
<br />waters; waves along seashores; tidal water and waves; stream overflows;
<br />and water spray, wind-driven or otherwise. The coverage would also in-
<br />sure against backed-up sewer water; subsurface waters, either from
<br />flows or leakage; landslides caused by water; and wind-driven rains.
<br />The rate for this type of insur,lnce, if compulsory, would probably be
<br />about four cents per $100 of coverage, dependin9 011 the type of con-
<br />struction, and would probably increase the annucll premium for the
<br />average homeowner by five to ten dollars.
<br />
<br />In addition to the study by the National Association of Insurance
<br />Commissioners, an article in The Wall Street Journal, October 10, 1965,
<br />reports that Congress is consTd;~ring a plan to aid future victims of
<br />floods and hurricanes, with final action thereon probably be,ing taken
<br />in 1966. However, as the article points out, once before, i.n 1956,
<br />Congress authorized creatio'n of a flood indemnity fund, built on an
<br />insurance framework under which persons seeking protection would pay 60
<br />per cent of the premium and 20 per cent each would be paid by the
<br />federal and state governments. But the Federal Flood Indemnification
<br />Administration, which was e'stablished t.o run thE! program, quickly be..
<br />came mired in rate- setting quarrels, and when it requested elill appropri-
<br />ation of $500 million in 1957 m,arely to start the program, the House
<br />Appropriations Committee ba,lked. Without any funding, the program
<br />perished.
<br />
<br />State Bank Commissioner
<br />
<br />The State Bank Commissioner reported that a day or two after
<br />the flood, representatives of all financial institutions in the Denver
<br />area were invited to attend a maeting to discuss ways and mE!anS of
<br />assisting individuals and busin,ess firms that had incurred l.osses as a
<br />result of the flood. Several r,epresentatives of the Small Business
<br />Administration were present to explain the position of that institution
<br />and the part the S.B.A. could t.,ake in making funds availablE! to flood
<br />victims by granting direct loans, partici.pating in loans, or by guaran-
<br />. teeing loans made by other lending institutions.
<br />
<br />Small Business Administration di.sast.er loans are available to
<br />individuals, business concerns, and nonprofit organizations such as
<br />churches. However, farmer!i anel stockmen are not eligible; they must
<br />go to the F.H.A. or P.C.A. for financing. The purpose of the disaster
<br />loans is to restore a victl.m's home or business property to its pre-
<br />disaster condition, as nearly a,s possible, and such loans melY be used
<br />to repair or replace damagEld furniture or other household bEllongings
<br />as well as real estate. The loans are made at interest rat.E! of three
<br />per cent per annum and may haVE! a maturity date of up to 20 years.
<br />
<br />In some instances the balllks participated in these di!iaster
<br />loans; in others, they advanced all of the funds and the S.B.A. guarar:l-
<br />teed up to 90 per cent of the funds loaned. Pr,actically all of the
<br />banks had employees available to assist in preparing applications for
<br />direct loans from the S.B.A., cllld in some instances, notably the large,r
<br />banks, a moratorium was declarEld on existing debts. WhereVI!r possiblE!,
<br />direct loans from banks we:re made available to disaster victims.
<br />
<br />- 11 -
<br />
|