Insurers Backing Away from Homes with Chinese Drywall

By | October 16, 2009

  • October 16, 2009 at 7:10 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Leave the government out of this. We don’t need government intervention. It is the vendor’s fault, not the US Governments. The Vendors failed to inform consumers of a defectve product just to make a buck. Doesn’t anyone know about the paticulars of product liability?. The courts are the way to go. The Vendors should be held accountable for their actions. Let start there.

    Santos

  • October 16, 2009 at 11:09 am
    curious says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why aren’t these homeowners going after the builders and the builders’ insurance carriers?

  • October 16, 2009 at 11:14 am
    Mr. Solvent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The builders are going to be the only ones who will cover this in the end. This should teach everyone a valuable lesson about importing everything.

  • October 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm
    Rater says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    B/c most of the builders are out of business. Obama will have to fix this one or Charlie Crist before he runs for Senate. Don’t worry all Floridians will pay for this one.

  • October 16, 2009 at 12:55 pm
    Reality Bites says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Probably the builder was an LLC and has since folded up the business, once the project was completed, and moved onto the next LLC and the next development. Ain’t nothing to sue.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:11 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Polution exclusion applies. Harmful gas is considered a polution. Both Bodily Injury and property damage is excluded on a standard CGL.

    The only way to handle this is through some sort of super clean up fund through the government and assessed on policies.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:23 am
    M. Hart says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bill, Despite your terrible spelling and atrocious grammar, you’ve raised an excellent idea.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:34 am
    Kyle says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Universal of North America’s rates on older homes are not that competitive in South Florida. Make sure the reporter on this article does not confuse it with Universal Property (with the elephant) out of Ft Lauderdale who insures older crappy old homes without wind reports.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:36 am
    kpop says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    who would of thought that buying cheap wallboard from China would cause this kind of problem? I wonder if the foam they are using in cars contains the same harmful fumes? I bet it does.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:49 am
    S FL agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    this issue really doesn’t involve ‘OLDER Crappy’ homes… The drywall was imported 2004 -2008. My office insures someone with this problem and the home is only a few years old and worth 1 million plus. The older homes didnt use this stuff – maybe the older homes aren’t so crappy.

  • October 16, 2009 at 1:49 am
    wondering.... says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m just wondering how one would be able to tell the difference between regular drywall and Chinese drywall. I mean, if I go to buy a house, is that something they have to disclose? Or, how would a new homeowner know that they might have a problem?

  • October 16, 2009 at 2:24 am
    Mikey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why do we continue to import from China with no seeming checks and balances??

    Last year there was a Heparin scare–(a blood thining medication)…..as I was lying in an emergency room while suffering from a heart attack–I mustered enough strength to ask if the Heparin I was being administered was from China. They told me it was, but their batches tested OK.

    Drugs/drywall/children’s toys—China doesn’t seem to care at all as long as they can move product. WE NEED SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THIS COUNTRY!!

  • October 16, 2009 at 3:22 am
    County Line says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The list of toxic goods imported from China as consmer-safe is too long to recount.

    It is now well known that the gypsum compounds China exported here includes (among other things) high concentrations of industrial waste the Chinese would otherwise have had to dispose of in their country.

    China is no doubt delighted to get rid of their toxic waste and have us actually pay for it. So we bought their poison pill, swallowed it and the Chi-coms smirk while we suffer the result with no legal recourse against them.

    Meanwhile, the damaged parties here litigate all those within the USA’s chain of commerce for the toxic product. The Chinese must be riotously amused to watch us attack our own, as they count the wealth we transferred to them.

    By chasing lowest price, this nation gave away our industrial base to China, an adversary with an abysmal human rights record. Why should we expect them to care any more for our safety than that of their own non-elite class?

    How many times does the saying “You get what you pay for” have to be repeated for folks to understand?

    Wake up and smell the coffee. Demand USA products. They might cost more, but they won’t destroy your health or finances. USA demand for USA made goods will be the REAL stimulus package.

  • October 16, 2009 at 4:11 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Bill, you said…
    “The only way to handle this is through some sort of super clean up fund through the government and assessed on policies.”

    Why “assessed on policies”? This is not an insurance issue. It’s not covered. Why not assess building permits, imported building materials, or home builders’ licenses?

  • October 16, 2009 at 4:32 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The home owner should be suing the builder’s insurance company for E&O as well as the vendor who sold the product to the builder in the US under “product liability.” This is a third party liability suit,not a first party suit.

    Santos

  • October 16, 2009 at 4:55 am
    Baxtor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What drywall do they use in China? Why isn’t the media investigating the homeowners there and see if they are dying or their pipes are coroding? Or did the Chinese know about this, quit making it for their people and thought, let’s just sell our surplus to another country?

  • October 16, 2009 at 4:58 am
    Baxtor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The only thing the government should do is give China an ultimatum, if they do anything. Either you defend yourself and pay any damages awarded or we don’t allow you to sell anything to the US again, plus, and this is big, when China tries to collect on their US bonds, we give the proceeds to the homeowners you were affected by this. Makes sense to me! However, our Country is so weak in Washington, that they will just write out checks to the homeowners and the rest of us have to pay for it. My car needs the timing belt replaced soon, when is the government going to send me a check to fix it? The dry wall is the homeowners and builders problem, not the governments.

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:09 am
    Good Luck to Citizens says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    With regard to the first party homeowner claims, which I agree are not covered, Citizens may have to eat alot of defense costs on these claims. Only then will the IDOTS at the Florida Dept of Insurance, truly see what it means to properly rate a risk, and charge a premium that allows for profit!!!!!!!! I hope they go under in defense costs.

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:24 am
    Actuary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There was a shortage of US drywall after the hurricanes. Cost of US drywall went up making the Chinese drywall look attractive. Pretty simple.

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:26 am
    santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Am I hearing you right? Are you saying you hope US vendors and the builder’s insurance carrier go under on defends cost for defending a product liability lawsuit? Or am I reading to much into this comment?

    Santos

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:31 am
    santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The question is, did the US vendors know the drywall was defective and sold it to US consumers? If so, then US vendors would have exposure to product liability lawsuits.

    Santos

  • October 16, 2009 at 5:37 am
    Actuary says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I doubt vendors know anything other than one’s made in US and the other’s made in China.

  • October 16, 2009 at 6:09 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    That is why they need a risk manager employed to oversee their risk exposure.

    Santos

  • October 16, 2009 at 6:20 am
    County Line says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Baxtor is completely right about exercising the real leverage we have. Make China pay damages or else forfeit the income from the US debt instruments they hold. After all, the Chinese government is the de-facto owner of many companies there.

    Those who think we should fund this mess with more of our tax money, or litigate the USA-based suppliers & builders fail to see it’s time to go after the responsible source. What good does it do to further damage our own people who were never legally responsible for the manufacturing?

    If any action needs to be taken here, it’s to hold China’s feet to the fire. Otherwise, they’ll never stop polluting the USA with their substandard products.

  • October 17, 2009 at 7:20 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To your Question No!!!!!. Insurance companies are denying claims as they are made and when the date of your renewal, if you have china drywall, they may choose not to do business with you and therefore, they may not renewal the policy contract.

    Insurance companies cannot cancel a policy mid-term unless there is deception or fraud on the part of the policy holder. Here, the defefective drywall is not the fault of the homeowner.

    I hope this will answer your question.

  • October 17, 2009 at 7:22 am
    Robert Rojas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Curious: The homeowners are going after the builder’s carrier. The hope was for the homeowner’s carrier to pay the initial claim and fix the house. That way the insured has no out of pocket expenses and is free to sue the builder for punitive damages. Why not force the insurance carriers to subrogate against themselves. Fortunately this did not happen. This is a terrible situation for many but not the homeowner carrier’s fault or problem.

  • October 17, 2009 at 7:36 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with your comments. For the insurance company to subrogate there has to be a liability claim such as the home burned due to the drywall igniting and burning the remainder part of the house, or something like that!!!. Fire would be a covered peril under the policy, which would trigger a cause for subrogation.

  • October 17, 2009 at 12:49 pm
    Robert Rojas says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Are insurers canceling homeowner policies mid-term as well as non-renewing. Not clear in article.

  • October 19, 2009 at 11:50 am
    Bluemax says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    At the risk of beiing redundant I offer two suggestions. 1. Try at all costs to avoid buying Chinese products as little regard is made for the results to injury to the end user including their own citizens. 2. Look at the retailer/wholesaler who sold the inferior product. If this was an auto rather than drywall evertone in the product chain would be named.

  • October 19, 2009 at 12:50 pm
    SWFL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Typically I would agree that the Gov’t should stay out of this but we’re talking about a Gov’t that has felt compelled to meddle in areas like “steroids in baseball”. So now it’s time for the Gov’t to step up and help us deal with a real problem – a foreign Gov’t. Who else can deal with the Chinese? The Chinese have a terrible record with regards to pollution, dangerous products, etc. The Chinese need to rectify this situation.

  • October 19, 2009 at 1:12 am
    Bubba says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Watch out for jewish lightning on these homeowner policies with this economy and real estate market it is a wonder you dont see a glow over cape coral.

  • October 20, 2009 at 7:23 am
    County Line says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Our only financial leverage: The Govt Bonds which the Chi-Coms hold record amounts of.

    Why devour our own when the table is set right under our very noses?

    If China is not willing to play ‘fair’ by sending us their toxic products, then take the damages out of their US bond earnings.

  • October 20, 2009 at 7:50 am
    M. Teresa says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    While the Chinks who manufactured this crap are the primary targets of anger, let’s not forget about the unscrupoulous people here in the USA who bought this crapa and approved it for use in home construction. There should be a warranty of merchantability that the product is fit for its intended use. OK, the Chinks blew it and good luck trying to get restitution from them. Go after the US suppiers, contractors, and building inspectors who should have protected their American customers. And why did they have to go offshore to get drywall? That crap is heavy and must cost a fortune to ship. American drywall worked just fine for decades.

    Homeowner insurance companies are correct not to cover this. HO policies don’t underwrite products. This is a products liability situation and the Chinks insurance company should respond. Why isn’t anyone looking at that angle?

  • October 20, 2009 at 8:31 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Go after the US suppliers, contractors, falls under the product liability rule and I agree.
    To answer your last question, China’s insurance company is the government
    They will assert the Sovereign Immunity Act and allege one cannot sue us unless we give permission and China’s government isn’t going to give permission to be sued. The US alleges the same Immunity in allowing products to enter the US. We cannot sue the U.S. government for illegal drugs coming into the US. It is better for the homeowners to stay with the supplier’s insurance carrier because China has none that I am aware of.

  • October 20, 2009 at 3:34 am
    SWFL Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Well Teresa which way is it? You say “Go after the US suppiers, contractors, and building inspectors who should have protected their American customers” and then state “This is a products liability situation and the Chinks insurance company should respond”. Yes, you’ve covered every angle but I don’t think you really understand the situation. American dywall has worked just fine but during the building boom it wasn’t available. It wasn’t an issue of cost. Interestingly, I believe the defective Chinese drywall has been traced back to one specific mine in China. This is where we need our Gov’t to step up and put pressure on the Chinese. China doesn’t care. They live in polluted cities and have no regard for safety or their environment. Their products are not cheap just becuase of cheap labor but also because they produce products without any regard for environmental consequences.

  • October 21, 2009 at 7:54 am
    santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What bonds!!!! We owe china. China does not care about posting a U.S. bond with the US. They make more money saling defective products to the U.S. Posting a bond, if that is what you are referring to, has no affect on china’s continue faulty products. Remember The Government is immune to lawsuits. China and the US

  • October 21, 2009 at 2:38 am
    County Line says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You jumped the gun. I wasn’t talking about a surety bond to cover any of this mess. Simply put: China’s government holds more US debt (US govt bonds) than any other entity on the planet.

    You’re right, we owe China their principal and interest back ON THOSE BONDS. That’s IF we honor our commitment. That’s what I’m pointing to as our only leverage. Let’s keep their bond principal and interest to fund the losses if they want to claim immunity from their gross product liability.

    Will it anger China? Yes. Will it damage our credit worthiness in the Chinese govt eyes? Probably, but it would teach them they have to grow a conscience if they want to reap rewards of access to our market.

  • October 26, 2009 at 9:35 am
    J Doe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I am offended that “professionals” would stoop to using words that denigrate Chinese and Jewish people. This is really disgusting, and I think the Insurance Journal needs to do a better job of policing such comments and removing them.

  • October 26, 2009 at 10:09 am
    CO Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    M. Teresa, I’m calling you out. Leave your racist slurs out of this forumn. Go to FoxNews.com if you want to use this language.

  • October 26, 2009 at 11:27 am
    Santos says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree, but is there something in your background that triggers such words to be disgusting, or do you feel such words promote hatred and the people who write such words are promoting hatred amongst other readings.

    I am just curious on the way people really think.
    Santos

  • October 26, 2009 at 12:36 pm
    J Doe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There is nothing in my background that triggers it; but I am offended by the use of language that is (at best) ignorant, and (at worst) offensive to people of that origin.

    I am not calling the authors of these comments racist; on the contrary, I think they make some very valid points. But I think that their use of the English language makes them appear ignorant and offensive.

    I would rather they leave out ethnicity and origin, and simply say “Chinese” or “arson for insurance”, instead of the inflammatory language which was employed.

  • October 26, 2009 at 5:55 am
    LARRY LOGIC says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Do you think that if we hold China’s bonds hostage, they might stop buying them, thus causing our financial house of cards to topple? Otherwise I agree!

  • October 27, 2009 at 3:14 am
    twittering bird says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree with the insurance companies on this one. This is a perfect example of the lack of consumer protection we have with imported products from China. Our gov’t should not allow products to come in unless they can provide us a copy of their products & completed operations coverage, or provide a warranty.

    This is outrageous. Oh, under what administration did this occur? The Chenney administration? Why am I not surprised.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*