Natural disasters are always in the news and leave no corner of the Earth unturned. We are working to understand how and why they happen, and how people can be better prepared to withstand them.

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Welcome!

Hello, and thank you for visiting the blog of the Natural Disasters class at St. Benedict's Prep. My first question to the students is this: What is your opinion about whether or not insurance companies should insure people's property that is in a known disaster zone (i.e., shorefront property in Florida, on the San Andreas fault in California, etc.)? Please explain your stance.
Posted by at

18 comments:

  1. CamachoAugust 10, 2011 at 11:36 AM

    I think that insurance companies should insure peoples properties that are on known disaster zones because even though it is in a known disaster zone, the risk percentage may be low. The frequency of the disaster may be low aswell.
    -Chris Camacho

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aldo BAugust 10, 2011 at 11:47 AM

    I believe that insurance companies should in fact insure peoples properties, because even though it is known for a disaster zone it may still have a low percentage of risk and frequency in that area.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Zakee Conte SmithAugust 10, 2011 at 12:02 PM

    Yes, I think that insurance companies should insure on people's property because if they know when the disaster will hit people's home, they have to be ready to pay.

    ReplyDelete
  4. alphoncioAugust 10, 2011 at 12:11 PM

    my opinion about this fact is that I constantly believe that, it will be helpful that insurance companies insure people's properties even if it's known as disaster zones, some people listen some don't but there are some other problems you may not know, it doesn't mean that they deserve it and actually the percentage of the intensity and the frequency may be also low.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brandon JohnsonAugust 10, 2011 at 1:40 PM

    Yes, I believe that the insurance companies should insure on the people's property if they are near known disaster zones because in that area their may be a low percentage of risk for a disaster in that area but their is a still a chaance of a disaster hitting. Also insurance is made to protect people's homes so it is only right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bruno CoimbraAugust 10, 2011 at 3:16 PM

    I believe that people that live in known disaster zones should be insured. However their insurance rates will probably be really high because of the high risk areas.If a person cannot pay then they shouldn't be insured. Nothing personal its just business.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousAugust 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM

    My opinion about this question is that insurance companies should insure people that live in danger zones becuase of damage the property took but,if the owners of the property can't pay the company back.Then the property should not be insecured.

    ReplyDelete
  8. angelAugust 10, 2011 at 4:19 PM

    I think insurance companies should secure people who live in places of disasters. People should feel secure and safe where they live. I also think that the company has to be a good company because the customer has to feel confident about the company they chose.

    ReplyDelete
  9. elijah acevedoAugust 10, 2011 at 7:39 PM

    i think that insurance companies should should secure people who live in a natural disaster zone. the reason why is because even though the magnitude of the disaster may not be the highest they have a more chance of getting a natural disaster

    ReplyDelete
  10. GucciAugust 10, 2011 at 8:03 PM

    I think that insurance companies should insure people's house's that are within a disaster zone because they live in an area is in danger of being destroyed. If a natural disaster occurs in the disaster zone, then their is a very probable chance that houses will be destroyed. It would be reasonable for someone to get insurance if they lived around these areas. The insurance company is benefitting from these people who live in these zones because it is more likely that if they are aware of their surroundings, then a lot more people would want insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Jalen J.August 10, 2011 at 8:18 PM

    I believe that the insurance companies should insure people's property if they are near a known disaster zone because it is likely that something will happen to their property. if their property is damaged then they know that they are secure in knowing that it will be replaced.

    ReplyDelete
  12. vicAugust 11, 2011 at 3:43 AM

    Vitor
    My opinion about this fact is that insurence company should pay the damages of houses that are located in a danger zone. the reason why is ver simple, the owners will pay a hight amount of money for the insurence of the house for the company, and the company will provide the money when needed if they get hit by a hurracane or etc..

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousAugust 11, 2011 at 4:15 AM

    Although the houses are in a danger zone I think its only fair to insure them.In my opinion the cost of the insurance should be high if they really want to live there.So in conclusion I think yes they should insure the houses.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousAugust 11, 2011 at 4:21 AM

    I believe that insurance companies should not insure the houses because it's not like the people are forces to live in known natural distaste zones they choose to live there and risk it why should they waste money for your bad decision that is how I feel

    ReplyDelete
  15. shawnAugust 11, 2011 at 4:26 AM

    I think that insurance companies should insure people who live in known disaster zones because all people should have a choice of protection , its only fair. I also think they should get insurance because though they live in a disaster zone there may be a low risk percentage. People who live in those areas should be charged with a greater cost because of their choice to live in that area

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousAugust 11, 2011 at 6:48 AM

    My opinion is companies should always be insured of natural disasters. They must be insured because natural disasters are uncalled for making them very dangerous to the companies facilities and the employed workers. If the companies located in a destination where many natural disasters occur repedetly the result will not be as tragic as to A natural disaster striking a location unexpectedly.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Whitney ForteAugust 11, 2011 at 5:40 PM

    I think the insurance companies should not insure homes with high disaster zones. My reason is because that area my have a high risk or even high frequency of disasters happening. In that case the insurance company would be loosing money everytime a disaster happens.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousAugust 21, 2011 at 4:25 PM

    I do believe that insurance companies should insure places that are known for natural disasters. its their job to make sure people property is secure so that they should do no matter what.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)