Federal Judge in Mississippi 'Storm Surge' Case Upholds Home Insurance Flood Exclusion
National News • April 13, 2006
A federal judge in Mississippi has upheld the water damage exclusion in homeowners insurance policies in a ruling welcomed by insurers.
U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. of the Southern ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: Charles - Some Records That May Help You And Others
Posted On: May 18, 2006, 10:19 pm CDT
Posted By: Tony
Comment:
Roger,
Some wonderful thoughts. Maybe Charles can get the Department of Defense to place a spy satellite in a geo-stationary orbit during the next hurricane.
Charles,
The best thing I can say is that whenever I am on a claim, I look for coverage, not exclusions. If you can prove to me (so I could take it to my supervisor) that the damage was from wind and not flood, I will write you a check so fast your heart will stop. The big issue here is what is provable. I have said it before, that if one can show/prove damages (as required by the policy) then they should be paid for it. Having said that, the person I work for has quoted to me (and I live by the mantra) the benefit of the doubt goes to the insured.
I have seen what 150+mph winds can do to a house and they are nothing compared to what a 20ft. storm surge can do.
My suggestion to you would be to have the adjuster and/the supervisor show/tell you why they believe there is an excluded event that damaged your property.
I realize you have suffered a loss, and I am truly sorry that you did, but being realistic, if it was flood and you didn't have a flood policy to save th $1500 per year, that is a decision you made. And, like I am trying to get through my 16 year olds head, we all have to live with our decisions.
Subject: RE: Charles - Some Records That May Help You And Others
Some wonderful thoughts. Maybe Charles can get the Department of Defense to place a spy satellite in a geo-stationary orbit during the next hurricane.
Charles,
The best thing I can say is that whenever I am on a claim, I look for coverage, not exclusions. If you can prove to me (so I could take it to my supervisor) that the damage was from wind and not flood, I will write you a check so fast your heart will stop. The big issue here is what is provable. I have said it before, that if one can show/prove damages (as required by the policy) then they should be paid for it. Having said that, the person I work for has quoted to me (and I live by the mantra) the benefit of the doubt goes to the insured.
I have seen what 150+mph winds can do to a house and they are nothing compared to what a 20ft. storm surge can do.
My suggestion to you would be to have the adjuster and/the supervisor show/tell you why they believe there is an excluded event that damaged your property.
I realize you have suffered a loss, and I am truly sorry that you did, but being realistic, if it was flood and you didn't have a flood policy to save th $1500 per year, that is a decision you made. And, like I am trying to get through my 16 year olds head, we all have to live with our decisions.