Posted On: February 25, 2007, 12:44 pm CST

Posted By: Temblor

We had the same problems here in S. Fl. with unlicensed contractors stealing from people. The various governments all broadcast warnings - get their Fl License #, get a certificate of insurance, verify their license with the state before you give them a nickel.

A lot to do when your house has been severely damaged, but your ONLY protection against crooked contractors.

Then flood vs windstorm causing the damage. I don't know what State Farm has filed in La., but in Miss. their homeowners policy said that if there were first windstorm damage, then flood that would have caused the same damage, there was no coverage. If they deny because the peril of flood isn't covered, then there's no additional living expense or loss of rents either.

I haven't heard anything about that wording being used in La., but that is the basis of the suits in Ms. There the trial judge halted the jury trial before that question got to them. he just said flat out that that clause was unenforceable and directed State Farm to pay. The only question for the jury was the amount of punitive damages, which he reduced from $2.5 million to $1 million.

That State Farm had that wording in their policy is absolutely despicable. In 39 years in the business I've never seen anything so despicable.

The amazing thing is, the Ms. State Insurance Department APPROVED that language! How that got by them I don't know.

State Farm has now agreed to pay, I think it was $80 million, more to settle other similar claims in Ms.

Note: An earlier suit before the the same judge resulted in him making a declaration that flood, including wind driven storm surge, is NOT covered under the homeowners policy. He reiterated that that is long established case law. (I'm sure Trent Lott (house on the beach, no flood insurance!)was not happy with THAT decision!)

If you have that same language in your policy, your attorneys need to bring to the court the decision in the Ms. case, which was in a Federal Court, not state court.

Allstate, Nationwide, others have said they do not have State Farm's wording in their policies so, despite the MS attorney general now turning his guns on them, they are not worried.

Besides State Farm's wording, much of the problem lies in the definition of flood plain, as used in the National Flood Program.

They define areas as flood plains based on the likelihood of flooding from falling rain. They do not take storm surge into account, although it fits the definition of flood in the homeowner's policy and the flood policy.

Areas unlikely to suffer flood from falling rain, but likely to suffer flood from storm surge, are not listed as being in a flood plain.

Thus we had people living on the beach but, because of the elevation of their building (on a hill or dune, for instance) they are not likely to suffer flooding from a 100 year rains storm but, as we see, they are vulnerable to flooding from 30 ft storm surge.

Not being in a designated flood plain, many living on or near a beach decided to save a few hundred dollars a year and not buy flood coverage.

Much to their (and Trent Lott's) dismay, the courts are and will hold they have no insurance.

Only if they can prove there was wind damage BEFORE the flood damage will the courts find coverage for them under the homeowners.

Kim, I wish you the best of luck, and I am really sorry for all you are going through. I just hope your attorneys nail State Farm to the wall, with really BIG nails.