Posted On: February 16, 2007, 1:20 pm CST

Posted By: Temblor

Bob is correct. State Farm's form says that if wind damage occurs first, then flood damage which would have caused the same damage as the wind already did, then they are not liable for the wind damage.

Thus if a policyholder had wind and flood damage, but no flood coverage, they have no coverage in this instance.

This first is a violation of the principle of proximate cause and secondly is a despicable move on their part. Talk about screwing your policyholders!

However, this wording was filed with, and somehow approved by the various state insurance departments. How did they overlook such a thing? the wording should never have been approved in the first place.

Allstate's wording says if there is wind damage first, we cover it, even if there is later flood damage.

Obviously anyone near the coast should recognize that storm surge can happen and should buy flood coverge, even if they are not in a "designated flood plain" which definition only encompasses flooding resulting from falling water, not from storm surge.

And, if at all possible, they should buy the flood coverage from their homeowner's insurer. That way there can be no arguing about who owes what to whom. True, the homeowner's insurer may have to argue with the feds over who pays what part, but that problem should not affect the homeowner.