Dear Editor,
I am not a promoter of NAGICO Insurances, I had two claims prior to the hurricane against NAGICO, one for my wife’s medical condition and one when my wife’s car was rear-ended. Neither were settled – which is why I no longer use NAGICO.
However, I have to support NAGICO in its claim against the airport. You do not need any knowledge about construction (which I have in abundance), to understand that the airport claim for the reconstruction and loss of business is absurd. How can the insurance claim be more than the original cost of construction?
The building needs a new roof, it needs gutting and refurbishing. It doesn’t need tearing down!
Simon Macauley
