Posted On: March 26, 2007, 8:14 am CDT

Posted By: Lotus

I thought the reason SF denied all those claims is due to the concurrent causation language in the policy. If this is the case, then they were justified in denying the claims. As to the fairness of the language.....It seems that b/c so many (too many) citizens were financially devastated by the catastophe, our legal system remedies the social problem by interpreting contract language in a way that was never intended by the drafters of the contracts. So, the claims get paid and life goes on. The problem w/this is that it creates a hostile environment in which to do business and the insurers make a mass exodus out of the state. This is/was happening in FL. Does anyone have a copy of the actual homeowners contract that SF used? I'd love to take a look at it.