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 Mark - How About Another Viewpiont
Posted On: May 22, 2006, 7:33 pm CDT
Posted By: Roger Poe
Comment:
5-22-2006
Mark,
Isn't it--'whether or not driven by WIND'?
Too,
"So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded."
Sounds like water ALONE did not play a solo role in affecting the strucutre.
No wind [cause] = no structural movement [effect]...per your example.
It's not about trying to get something for nothing Mark. It's about setting egos aside, and then thinking and reasoning on serious matters.
Take a look at your statement again;
"So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded."
Water rising [cause] does not necessarily mean that the eventuality of the rising water event [affected] structure is going to ensue into house movement.
Rising water [anticipated excluded coverage "cause"] loosened things up, but structure can remain in place until [anticipated included covered "cause"] wind creates the actual additional / final damage movement effect.
Again, no wind involvement - influence, no structural movement. (Per your scenario).
Just a thought.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. Did the policy say 'All ensuing damage per rising / tidal water includes wind pushing the structure off of soggy ground'?
(There might have a problem with that fuzzy logic).
Or was 'ensuing damage' referring to commonly understood stand alone water damage, without wind involvement?
Homes on slabs and piers may very well not have had movement damage unless/until wind affected the structure.
Water only created the potential OPPORTUNITY for wind to affect the structure, NOT the actual wind pressure that produced it's own ensuing damage results.
Flood water did not create the kinetic force, that wind alone produced, that was reponsible for PUSHING/MOVING the structure.
It just made the winds' damaging role easier to accomplish.
Two separate causes, two separate effects, two separate forms of coverage.
Wind did it's (covered) thing. It affected / damaged the structure per it's inherent ability.
No?
Subject: To Mark - How About Another Viewpiont
Mark,
Isn't it--'whether or not driven by WIND'?
Too,
"So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded."
Sounds like water ALONE did not play a solo role in affecting the strucutre.
No wind [cause] = no structural movement [effect]...per your example.
It's not about trying to get something for nothing Mark. It's about setting egos aside, and then thinking and reasoning on serious matters.
Take a look at your statement again;
"So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded."
Water rising [cause] does not necessarily mean that the eventuality of the rising water event [affected] structure is going to ensue into house movement.
Rising water [anticipated excluded coverage "cause"] loosened things up, but structure can remain in place until [anticipated included covered "cause"] wind creates the actual additional / final damage movement effect.
Again, no wind involvement - influence, no structural movement. (Per your scenario).
Just a thought.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. Did the policy say 'All ensuing damage per rising / tidal water includes wind pushing the structure off of soggy ground'?
(There might have a problem with that fuzzy logic).
Or was 'ensuing damage' referring to commonly understood stand alone water damage, without wind involvement?
Homes on slabs and piers may very well not have had movement damage unless/until wind affected the structure.
Water only created the potential OPPORTUNITY for wind to affect the structure, NOT the actual wind pressure that produced it's own ensuing damage results.
Flood water did not create the kinetic force, that wind alone produced, that was reponsible for PUSHING/MOVING the structure.
It just made the winds' damaging role easier to accomplish.
Two separate causes, two separate effects, two separate forms of coverage.
Wind did it's (covered) thing. It affected / damaged the structure per it's inherent ability.
No?