National News
Viewing comments for:
Insurer Group Calls Miss. AG's Comments 'Hysterical, Irresponsible'
National News April 18, 2006
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood's recent comments comparing the insurance industry to Nazis are "hysterical and irresponsible," claims an insurance trade group leader.
"Now that Hood's ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
| Subject | Posted By | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| RE: RE: Mississippi Duh... What would we loose if they left | 1who knows | Apr 28, 2006, 2:30 pm |
| RE: Mississippi Duh... What would we loose if they left us? | Katrina Survivor | Apr 27, 2006, 2:20 pm |
| RE: Mississippi | Wes | Apr 24, 2006, 5:39 pm |
| RE: place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen | LLCJ | Apr 24, 2006, 2:59 pm |
| RE: RE: Profit/overhead - To Mark | Roger Poe | Apr 19, 2006, 11:34 pm |
| Profit/Overhead -- Intrinsically Part Of Replacement Cost | Roger Poe | Apr 19, 2006, 11:13 pm |
| RE: Profit/overhead | Mark | Apr 19, 2006, 5:41 pm |
| Profit/overhead | Underwriter | Apr 19, 2006, 10:57 am |
| RE: Roger... again...Mark -- Please reread my commentary... | Roger Poe | Apr 19, 2006, 10:56 am |
| RE: RE: Hood as the Hoodwinker | Mark H | Apr 19, 2006, 8:06 am |
| Roger... again... | Mark | Apr 18, 2006, 9:58 pm |
| RE: Contrary to popular "Underwriter" belief... | Roger Poe | Apr 18, 2006, 8:47 pm |
| RE: Hood as the Hoodwinker - Interesting Comment | Roger Poe | Apr 18, 2006, 6:13 pm |
| Contrary to popular belief... | Underwriter | Apr 18, 2006, 5:22 pm |
| RE: RE: Hood as the Hoodwinker | Democratic Adjuster | Apr 18, 2006, 4:57 pm |
| RE: Hood as the Hoodwinker | Katrina Survivor | Apr 18, 2006, 4:36 pm |
| Place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen | Been Around Too Long | Apr 18, 2006, 4:19 pm |
| place your bets Ladies and Gentlemen | Democratic Adjuster | Apr 18, 2006, 4:02 pm |
| Hood as the Hoodwinker | Confounded | Apr 18, 2006, 3:46 pm |
| IMPORTANT "Flood" is excluded under this policy. | Gray | Apr 18, 2006, 3:40 pm |
| RE: Get an Attorney? | Bob | Apr 18, 2006, 3:36 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: RE: Heath | Vlad | Apr 18, 2006, 3:33 pm |
| RE: RE: RE: Heath | Chuck | Apr 18, 2006, 3:19 pm |
| RE: RE: Heath | Coy | Apr 18, 2006, 3:08 pm |
| RE: Heath | Independent | Apr 18, 2006, 2:58 pm |
| RE: Democrats | Democratic Adjuster | Apr 18, 2006, 2:55 pm |
| Nazi... | Heath | Apr 18, 2006, 2:47 pm |
| RE: Nazi? | TEACHER | Apr 18, 2006, 1:47 pm |
| Nazi? | JEFFERSONIAN | Apr 18, 2006, 10:41 am |
| RE: Get an Attorney? | tribbs | Apr 18, 2006, 10:30 am |
| Get an Attorney? | see | Apr 18, 2006, 9:06 am |
| Back to article | ||


Subject: RE: Hood as the Hoodwinker - Interesting Comment
Confounded,
Good point on agents having hard copy proof, signed by the insured, that the insured declined critical flood coverage.
My understanding is that after hurricane Andrew, if agents could not provide proof that claimants actually understood, and declined, in writting, that they wanted/purchased ACV (actual cash value) only coverage, instead of RCV (replacement cost value) coverage, that ALL such claimants never lost in (Dade County) courts, when seeking replacement cost coverage settlements.
As for covering flood losses, with wind coverage, if the causual-chain-of-events were such that wind did create the accidental opportunity for the levee breakage / NOL area flooding, then why would wind forces not be considered the accidental cause trigger for damage, by proxy?
No wind involvement, no levee breakage.
On the other hand, if coverage was clear that ONLY when wind created a opening / damage opportunity towards a wall, window, entry, garage door, or roofing system, then it seems the commonly understood concept-definition for flood water, (water that collectively gathers on the ground and rises accordingly, so as to create water floodage) is not, and was never intended to be, covered.
On properties that were not fully submerged, the wind / flood effects may be easy to determine. (Flood water marks verses ceiling and wall water stainage).
If flood water softened the ground under a concrete slab, and wind moved the structure, is that wind caused damage?
Can wind movement damage be contrasted against flood damage by carefully examining roof, wall and floor wood frame nails / fasteners for framework movement, even on structures that were submerged, and are now dry?
"Newly" exposed parts of fasteners, even rusting ones, have a pulled / oxidation rate history "fingerprint" to disclose, even after wood swells, dries out and shrinks, or doesn't swell, or shrink...
Seems like certain knowledgeable and experienced insurers, adjusters, engineers, contractors, homeowners, business owners, attorneys and public officials are going to be busy for a while, case-by-case...
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com