Everyone accepts the basic principle of capitalism that, if a company is run on a for-profit basis, it’s entitled to run a business model that maximizes revenue and minimizes costs. After all, it’s only fair that whoever puts up the money to start a business should be entitled to a return on their investment. But there comes a point when we should ask how much profit is morally acceptable and whether there should be limits on the means a business can use to make that profit. In the movie Wall Street, Gordon Gekko answers the first by saying there’s no such thing as “enough”. All that happens in business is money gets transferred from the losers to the winner. Later he says greed is good. Looking around at the amount of bonuses paid to the bankers and senior officers of our largest corporations, it seems they’ve learned Gordon Gekko’s lessons well.

As an example, let’s take the insurance industry. For a few years, it offers cover against all the standard perils from wind and rain. That way, if a storm hits your home, you can claim regardless whether the wind huffs and puffs it down or floods wash it away. Except, the insurers noticed there were more floods coming along, so they stopped insuring. The result? The Federal government had to set up the National Flood Insurance Program to take on the risks the private corporations rejected. Then along came a series of hurricanes that did real damage through the combination of wind and water. People living near the coast discovered to their cost that insurers were excluding so-called storm surges. That’s where the wind whips up the water and drives it inland.

These days, insurers are very careful to define exactly what wind and water damage they cover. If there’s even the slightest doubt your damage falls within the scope of their definitions, your claim will be rejected and your only remedy will be to sue. As an example of the attitude shown by some insurers, let’s travel to Mississippi where the local Supreme Court is dealing with a case in which the same insurance company paid out for wind damage to the houses on both sides of the claimant, but refused a cent to the house in the middle. The problem follows from Hurricane Camille when this particular insurer lost a lot of money. So it inserted a new term in the policy which says that if water gets involved, all wind damage is excluded even if the wind contributed to the damage. The result is rather dramatic. Suppose your home is 95% destroyed by wind and then there’s a small flood that completes the destruction, the insurance company would deny all liability.

In a for-profit business model, there’s no general requirement for the home insurance company to be fair to the customer. If the clause is clearly set out in the policy and the customer accepts the policy, this is the customer’s choice and the insurer will deny liability. So, the next time you get those home insurance quotes, make a point of reading through the policies to see what exceptions and exclusions the insurers have written into the policies. If you live in an area where wind and water may combine, you could find your claims denied.