Katrina at Two Years: $40.6 Billion Paid on 1.7 Million Insurance Claims
National News • August 7, 2007
Two years later, the "overwhelming majority of claims" in Gulf Coast states from Hurricane Katrina have been settled in what has been the single largest loss — $40.6 billion — in the history of ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [To Nobody important]
Posted On: August 9, 2007, 8:38 am CDT
Posted By: Sam
Comment:
Joe, Nationwide's concurrent causation language is the subject of an appeal in MS (Leonard v. Nationwide). Concurrent causation language has not been struck down everywhere, as your post seems to infer. Do you know for a fact that this language/issue has been tried in every jurisdiction? This is not a sarcastic question. I'm curious to know what you know about this subject in states other than OK, MS & LA.
Using your example of wind damage followed the next day by a sinkhole. If a non-covered event follows that closely to a covered event (wind), the home is still a total loss. How can ANY adjuster determine how much wind damage there was? (Again, no sarcasm here.) How can the policyholder be indemnified for the wind loss when they themselves cannot prove the damages that arose from the wind damage? Situations such as this are the basis for concurrent causation language, isn't it?
This leads into the recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on VPL (Valued Policy Laws), which attorneys and policyholders have been using to rape carriers (ALL carriers) when there are concurrent causation issues. Is it OK for policyholders to get full value of the policy/property when the a portion of the loss was caused by a non-covered event even if the covered event did not total the property?
I'm not going to debate bonuses, pay, profits, etc. I am just trying to understand your position on why it is OK for policyholders and attorneys to interpret the policy way beyond what was ever intended, but it is not OK for carriers to rely on the approved wording in a policy to deny a claim.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: [To Nobody important]
Using your example of wind damage followed the next day by a sinkhole. If a non-covered event follows that closely to a covered event (wind), the home is still a total loss. How can ANY adjuster determine how much wind damage there was? (Again, no sarcasm here.) How can the policyholder be indemnified for the wind loss when they themselves cannot prove the damages that arose from the wind damage? Situations such as this are the basis for concurrent causation language, isn't it?
This leads into the recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on VPL (Valued Policy Laws), which attorneys and policyholders have been using to rape carriers (ALL carriers) when there are concurrent causation issues. Is it OK for policyholders to get full value of the policy/property when the a portion of the loss was caused by a non-covered event even if the covered event did not total the property?
I'm not going to debate bonuses, pay, profits, etc. I am just trying to understand your position on why it is OK for policyholders and attorneys to interpret the policy way beyond what was ever intended, but it is not OK for carriers to rely on the approved wording in a policy to deny a claim.