Posted On: August 9, 2007, 9:43 am CDT

Posted By: adjusterjoe

Sam:

As far as concurrent causation, I have worked claims all over the US and the only times I have ever run across it was in hurricanes and as far back as 1994 in Hurricane Opal, concurrent causation was not applied. The courts sometimes do use good sense. I repeat from my earlier post; Why should a legitimately owed claim be able to be denied in its entirity just because another loss occurs? I paid losses in FLA in Opal with "CONCURRENT CAUSATION." The courts look at the past and what has been universally accepted, ie "public policy" and use it in their rulings. If it has been a common practice in the past, why should State Farm now be able to unilaterally remove coverage?

The engineers tell us that they can "GUARANTEE" (and SF accepts this as gospel) that all of the damages were from flood to allow State Farm to escape from any exposure, so why can't they determine a reaonable wind damage from examining adjacent property? How can they guarantee the dwelling was destroyed by flood and not wind? Was there a wind meter at the dwelling where the loss occurred? Was ther a measuring device at the dwelling for flood levels? Just think about it; why are engineers infalable when their answers are on the side of the carrier and not questioned? The allegations, apparently borne out by actual engineer reports in this instance, are that when the reports support the insured, the carrier has them changed. I have read some of the actual reports and understand why the carriers are being questioned in court. The engineer's work in Katrina was very shoddy. When it helps the carrier the engineer is a hero and makes good money, but when it favors the insured, it is a different story. He is not called back again.

The only place where I ever heard of the valued plicy being wrongly applied was in FLA. It was quickly corrected by the legislature. You should check the valued policy statute in MS and LA as neither has wind as a covered peril for valued policy to kick in. Alabam has no valued policy statute. As far as a recent ruling on Valued Policy on the 5th Circuit, I am not familiar, but I would suggest that if that is the case, it is due to the carrier not proving their case, ie SHODDY ENGINEER REPORTS. If this case originated from Louisiana, they have some strange jurispurdence such as direct action, no full spousal immunity, assumed negligance if the loss eminates from your property and many others.