Letter from the table: A claim is not a recovery plan

RC/RS/2026/T.5
Type: Table letter
Stance: Amend
23 March 2026

To the Resilience Council

I read Lucía’s letter from Puerto Plata. I recognized the gap she describes between being told to prepare and having somewhere to turn when the water has already come in. In my case, the hardest part was not deciding whether I had suffered a loss. It was keeping the doors open while different processes asked me to prove that loss on different clocks.

On 18 September 2025, heavy rain flooded part of the small premises I rely on for my work in Santo Domingo. Water reached equipment and damaged materials. By the next morning I had photographed the rooms, moved what I could, and made a list. My first estimate was DOP 186,400. That was not a final valuation; it was the amount I could document at the time.

I checked the public information from the Centro de Operaciones de Emergencias (COE) and the forecasts from the National Office of Meteorology (ONAMET). They helped me understand the wider weather situation. They did not tell me whether the water had reached my particular street or what I should submit to an insurer. I contacted the insurer named in my policy, reported the loss, and kept copies of the photographs, receipts and messages. I also asked what temporary help might be available while the claim was being assessed. I did not find a clear route from the local emergency response to short-term support for a small owner who had evidence of damage but no completed claim.

Dominican Republic Law 147-02 provides the framework for the National System for Prevention, Mitigation and Response to Disasters, with the COE serving as a coordinating institution. Insurance is a separate process, governed by the policy and the country’s insurance framework, including Law 146-02. I am not claiming that either law promised me a particular payment date. That distinction is exactly why a practical standard matters: an emergency coordination system and an insurance claim are not the same thing, and neither one, by itself, pays the bills that continue while a claim is pending.

I tried to make a recovery plan from what I had. I kept the damaged items available for inspection, saved proof of expenses, and asked for a written account of what remained outstanding. I postponed some payments and used personal funds to cover immediate costs. I could not responsibly replace everything at once without knowing what the claim would cover. Nor could I wait indefinitely for a final decision before taking basic steps to resume work. The problem was not that I had made no effort. The problem was that the next step depended on information or money I did not yet have.

Lucía’s experience from Puerto Plata is a useful reminder that the same weather can produce very different losses and very different evidence. A coastal business, a hillside shop and a small operation in Santo Domingo may face different routes for reporting a problem. I do not want the Council to write a standard that assumes every owner has a formal disaster declaration, a professional inventory, or the money to remain closed until an adjuster finishes. The proposed Reopen Map can help owners find local contacts, but a map should show the difference between emergency information, insurance procedures and actual bridge support.

RS-001 has the right core: decisions on insurance claims within 30 days; bridge funding within 10 days of a declared disaster; and continuity-planning support for micro businesses. I support those aims. I ask the Council to amend the draft before adoption so it answers three practical questions.

• First, define what starts each clock. The 30-day period should begin when a claimant has submitted the basic information reasonably available, with the insurer promptly identifying any material gap. The standard should require a clear update if a decision cannot be made within that period, rather than letting a file sit without explanation.

• Second, clarify the bridge-funding trigger. Where a competent national or local authority has not issued a formal disaster declaration, the standard should allow a documented local event to qualify through a transparent verification process. Small owners should not have to prove a national-scale catastrophe before seeking temporary help after a serious localized flood.

• Third, say what bridge funding is and is not. It should be accessible before an insurance claim is finalized, with plain terms and no assumption that the owner has already received an insurer’s decision. It must not be treated as a substitute for insurance proceeds or as a reason to reduce a valid claim. Continuity support should include simple, low-cost steps that an owner can use before the next storm, not only a plan written after a loss.

These amendments would not require the Council to promise that every claim is accepted or every request for funding is paid. They would require a process that is understandable, time-bound and usable by a very small business. Disaster losses fall heavily on smaller enterprises; the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction has reported that SMEs bear about 75% of business disaster losses.¹ A response that arrives only after a business has exhausted its cash is not much of a reopening plan.

As the Council gathers evidence and develops the Reopen Map, please include the questions owners actually need answered: Who records the damage? Which institution handles which part? What can be submitted if receipts were lost? What happens when the event is local but no formal declaration follows? Where can an owner ask for help without confusing a public alert with an insurance decision?

Notes and sources

1. UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, “Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises.” ↩

Sources

1. UNDRR: Supporting disaster risk reduction and resilience practices for small and medium-sized enterprises