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: Adjusterjoe
Posted On: August 9, 2007, 10:59 am CDT
Posted By: adjusterjoe
Comment:
Sam: I am baffled by your response. You wrote as follows:
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?
This suggests that the court has wrongly applied valued policy. But now you state the courts got it right. Where is the arguement? WE agree valued policy should not apply in this case and the court got it right. Lawyers daily file lawsuits for things they want but don't get.
As far as answering your questions, I answered them fully. You misread my example as I used a simialr timeframe as occurred in the hurricane. The wind occurred duing the day and later that nite, the sinkhole occurred. The wind from the Hurican preceded the flood by several hours, same scenario.
Finally read my post. Engineers are GOD when they support the insurance industry and are not to be questioned. If they are so good, they can certainly determine raesonably how much wind damage occurred if they can "GUARANTEE" it was all flood water. The industry many times cuts off tehir nose to spite their face.
Subject: RE: Adjusterjoe
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?
This suggests that the court has wrongly applied valued policy. But now you state the courts got it right. Where is the arguement? WE agree valued policy should not apply in this case and the court got it right. Lawyers daily file lawsuits for things they want but don't get.
As far as answering your questions, I answered them fully. You misread my example as I used a simialr timeframe as occurred in the hurricane. The wind occurred duing the day and later that nite, the sinkhole occurred. The wind from the Hurican preceded the flood by several hours, same scenario.
Finally read my post. Engineers are GOD when they support the insurance industry and are not to be questioned. If they are so good, they can certainly determine raesonably how much wind damage occurred if they can "GUARANTEE" it was all flood water. The industry many times cuts off tehir nose to spite their face.