The coastland times. [volume] (Mnateo [i.e. Manteo], N.C.) 1947-1959, 1955-10-14
DISASTER INSURANCE URGED
AS NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
TO OFFSET TERRIFIC LOSSES
Why Not Provide A Certain Security Against
Menaces of the Kind Induced From Hurricanes;
Let The People Buy it. and Let It Cover the Ma
ton. Similar to Federal Deposit Insurance.

1t we are to draw from the
counsel of our forebears, we must
believe the Lord helps those who
help themselves, that we must do
something about these all too fire.
quent hurricanes that menace our
homes, our property, businesses,
and savings. 1t is intolerable that
coastal residents should constantly
be exposed to ruin at the whim of
each hurricane, or the tidal waves
that are handmaiden to those
tropical storms. 1t is unthinkable
that we should be subject to ten
sion and fear at each advisory of
each new tropical disturbance. 1t
is unwarranted that our homes and
property should be unprotected.
And it is not at all in the Ameri-
can tradition that we sit idly by
hoping for the best and fearing
the worst.
There can be protection against
loss from hurricane tides such as
have devastated some coastal
areas, along with the terrific
floods that have cost so much life
and property in areas farther in
land. Jim Morton, New York news
paper man, part-time resident of
Mays Head beach, says it is a
national responsibility to establish
q system of disaster insurance.
While those of US who live in the
Dare Coastland have been fortu-
nate indeed, it is quite possible,
that worse storms could visit us.
We have only to compare ours
with the lot of others. No place is
safe from the fury of the elements.
In a thought provoking letter
to the editor of this newspaper,
Mr.. Morton makes the following
timely comment:
What we can do is clearly evil
dent. We must get together and
insist on federal disaster insur-
ance. We must demand that our
Legislators provide protection
against hurricanes, tidal waves,
floods, and high water. Relief, or
the promise of it, is not the ans
wer. Most coastal residents want
water-damage protection, and will
gladly pay for it. They are en-
titled to protection of their homes.
The insurance underwriters con-
stantly preach full protection: life
insurance, liability, education in
surance, theft insurance, fire, COM
prehensive coverage. But just try
to get protection from tidal waves,
pounding seas, or flood; In under
writing fire insurance and refusing
water damage insurance, the pri-
vate companies are, in effect, COM
pelling US to be "half safe"
Everybody knows that in reality
there's no such thing as half safe.
You might as well lock the front
door and leave the back door open.
Protection must be complete, or
it's not really protection at all.
What purpose is there to insure
your life if your home, in which
your life's savings are invested,
and your business must be at
every storm exposed to total loss ?
How can man provide for his
family's protection if the home and
property he has acquired through
lifetime are not included in the
deal? The average widow would
be better off with her home and
property than the meager income
provided by a life insurance policy.
In any case, the family is only
"half safe" when the insurance
company UNDERWRITERS a life policy
and declines to protect the home
and household goods.
Recently State Insurance Com
missioner Charles F. Gold stated
he chopped the underwriters will
hiohC oNdlioDIC HlouIdilCc against
water-damage in disasters and
asserted "if they do not then the
federal government should act"
believe Mr.. Gold must recognize, as
most of US do, that the private
companies have no intention of
underwriting water-damage pro-
lection, but hesitates to voice that
opinion, in so many words, lest the
usual hue and cry of "socialistic
measure" be raised. The unvarnish-
ed facts are that private companies
have explored every conceivable
type Of insurance, even liability
protection for some boyish Incl
dent in which your child might be
involved, and they have instituted
every form which they thought
profitable to private enterprise
The recent hurricanes would GER
tainly not make private companies
more receptive to water-damage
insurance. The fact is it had the
opposite effect. They wouldn't
ever consider water-damage pro-
lection now.
In 1862 the important Insurance
J Executives Association, reflecting