In my country, there have been devastating floods last year, displacing a lot of families. Of course, investigations have been done uncovering that a lot of the plots were not catalogued as livable, and were marked as such exactly because of the possible flooding. Nevertheless, the local authorities gave permits to build. No-one got reprimanded in the slightest yet.
Of course, a rebuilding programme was proposed, and favourable loans have been given out by the state to help the displaced people rebuild their houses...On the same locations that flooded. The ones who had rebuilt it by now have got them flooded again because nobody thought that rebuilding a house on a flood-prone plot was possibly a bad idea.
This rings somewhat parallel to the case presented in the article, at least to me. I guess my point is that I really hate when insurance companies whine when they have to insure something, even if the people insured are living in the Swamp Castle from Monty Python.
Of course, a rebuilding programme was proposed, and favourable loans have been given out by the state to help the displaced people rebuild their houses...On the same locations that flooded. The ones who had rebuilt it by now have got them flooded again because nobody thought that rebuilding a house on a flood-prone plot was possibly a bad idea.
This rings somewhat parallel to the case presented in the article, at least to me. I guess my point is that I really hate when insurance companies whine when they have to insure something, even if the people insured are living in the Swamp Castle from Monty Python.