Judge in La. Rules in Favor of Insurance Companies in Flood Lawsuit
Texas / South Central News • May 22, 2006
Insurance companies are not responsible for hurricane-related flood damage if homeowners carry coverage only for windstorms, a federal judge in Louisiana has ruled in a lawsuit over dispute claims ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: To CTC - Covered Causes Should Be Properly Covered
Posted On: May 22, 2006, 2:03 pm CDT
Posted By: Roger Poe
Comment:
5-22-2006
CTC,
If specifically defined [flood] loss scenarios are not covered, then they are not covered. That has always seemed reasonable to conclude.
But causual-chain-of-events / coverage by proxy, alway's needs to be fairly considered too...no?
Then too, there is the anticipated windstorm loss damage computer modeling thing to consider...
http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed97/97001.pdf
What came first, wind damage or flood damage.
Since rising water does not have the same kinetic force as sudden tidal surge impact, structures underwater, or dried out, may retain wind damage "evidence" waiting to be discovered.
If any structures' components ballooned outward, or shifted / racked, or lost construction material from winds pulling and pushing, or wind borne debris projectiles / missiles broke construction components or other covered property, and non-flood water/rain damage was also present, then those issues need fair indemnificsation consideration....no?
Common high wind damage, dismissed as flood damage, would not serve the general public's good.
Too, insurers and adjusters who distort downward (low-balling / deceptive trade practice) fair and rational reconstructiion procedures and costs, in a cat or non-cat market, is the next thing to track regionally.
Or is it already being tracked and recorded, in the trenches by consumers and contractors, and at claim managers' desks?
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
Subject: To CTC - Covered Causes Should Be Properly Covered
CTC,
If specifically defined [flood] loss scenarios are not covered, then they are not covered. That has always seemed reasonable to conclude.
But causual-chain-of-events / coverage by proxy, alway's needs to be fairly considered too...no?
Then too, there is the anticipated windstorm loss damage computer modeling thing to consider...
http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed97/97001.pdf
What came first, wind damage or flood damage.
Since rising water does not have the same kinetic force as sudden tidal surge impact, structures underwater, or dried out, may retain wind damage "evidence" waiting to be discovered.
If any structures' components ballooned outward, or shifted / racked, or lost construction material from winds pulling and pushing, or wind borne debris projectiles / missiles broke construction components or other covered property, and non-flood water/rain damage was also present, then those issues need fair indemnificsation consideration....no?
Common high wind damage, dismissed as flood damage, would not serve the general public's good.
Too, insurers and adjusters who distort downward (low-balling / deceptive trade practice) fair and rational reconstructiion procedures and costs, in a cat or non-cat market, is the next thing to track regionally.
Or is it already being tracked and recorded, in the trenches by consumers and contractors, and at claim managers' desks?
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com