After a three-week trial, which included testimony of six engineers and a noise expert from the Port Authority, the jury took five hours to return its verdict, Wilkofsky said. He said Allstate settled with the Ferrantis on Dec. 21. Boy this story smell of bad faith. I guess I will read the count papers on this one.
Boy, does this one smell. He’s the contractor AND the period of time before he reported it. Sounds to me like Allstate was given the shaft.
This reminds me of a false claim in Kenner, LA, where the woman claimed that the loose bricks in her home were caused by a plane crash. The homeowners insurance denied, but after some time, I saw in the newspapers where she ended up collecting some money from the airline.
What “smells” about this claim is that Allstate took all these years to finally relent, and pay $995,000. Insurers don’t pay this kind of money unless a claim is 100% legitimate, and the value is substantially higher in value. Too many insurers play this “hold the money” game, and eventually pay, but end up paying far less than the real value of the claim. The delays monetarily favor the insurers.
Hey AMC, I have a crack in my house. I think an airplane went by once, I don’t remember but I think it was big and loud. Will you pay for my crack? It will only cost $1MM.
Will Allstate now subrogate this to Air France’s carrier?
This is also going to be an interesting case in terms of precedent.
How many thousands of homes are near airports with a high volume of “heavy” traffic (747’s and such) where vibration is a normal occurrence?
My area is on the edge of an Air Force supersonic test corridor and 5-10 sonic booms a day are not uncommon at times. These shake every building out here when they occur, sometimes quite severely.
Does this award now set a precedent for homeowners to file claims for stucco cracks, ill-fitting windows, foundation cracks and the like simply because they live in an area with high volume air traffic? What about homes near railroad tracks?
How many class actions will now spring up as a result of this?
You must be joking AMC. Insurers pay millions of dollars of money they don’t owe to stay out of court. Jackpot juries and predudiced courts are to be avoided at all possible. Also, the legal costs for cases lasting for years and years are huge. This may or may not be a valid loss, but it may just be cheaper than a huge unjustified judgement, punitive damages and ten years worth of legal costs. I have seen $50,000 claims fought with $500,000 legal expenses. That’s the real legal world.
In Texas the mold problem ended at the same time that the policy changed. No coverage = no more mold. Just like magic! Hillary is from New York now so she will fix this. Wonder if Bill or Hillary have any mold or plane vibrator issues?
New York needs Hillary now more than ever.
I’m with Desert Rat. I live near a Vulcan plant and my house shakes like crazy whenever they are blasting rocks. Unfortunately there are at least several hundred houses near this place. Some there for 30 years and there is a subdivision with 300 homes being built now. I did not find out the plant was there till after I moved in several years ago. Really this area should have been zoned all commercial if you ask me. Can I sue for the cracks in my ceiling and along the walls? My neighborhood has only been in existence for four years and as soon as people move in, a quarter of them stay one year, six months and then they’re out. This is also true of the KB homes across the street from the plant. Every other house has a “FOR SALE” sign. The shaking is pretty nerve-racking sometimes. It has to be affecting the foundation. The property appraisals only go up a couple of grand a year if that tells you anything. I love the close proximity to the interstate and the fact that the fire department is practically behind my house.
Just wondering because this could truly be precedent setting to the point where you have lawsuits on a grand scale like the mold debate, Big Tobacco, etc.
Hey Plano Taxas, I cant wait till Bush is run out of office, then that criminal can come back and live with your redneck sorry but back in Texass. You rednecks can have him.
In case you weren’t aware, Bush is not being, nor will he be, “run out of office”. His two terms are up and he will leave office in the same manner Clinton did (with the possible excepton of vandalizing the place on his way out).
As for criminal, if he is a criminal then I’m sure your Democrat controlled congress is leading the charge at this very minute to have him impeached. Right?
Oh, wait, I forgot, they were too busy last year holding roll call votes on 1,207 bills but only passing 141 of them with 47 of those being for post offices.
If it weren’t for all that work I’m sure they would be presenting their slam-dunk case for impeachment. Heck they might even have extra time in-between to get us out of Iraq like they promised you.
Sorry to get this off topic but I couldn’t resist.
Actually Bush declared war without the appoval of congress – That is against the constitution – Therefore he is a criminal. And dont tell me one word about Democrats – Im not a Democrat, im an Independant.
OK good point. Sometimes I over react. I actually like Bush. Hes just what he has to, to keep us safe. If that means going to war all over the world to chase terrorists then thats what we should do. Weve killed over 650,000 Iraqis becasue they are terrorists, and if we dont kill them, they will come to the US through the Mexican border, which is wide open. There are already sleeper cells and suicde bombers everywhere just waiting to strike at any moment. But somehow Geeorge Bush as held them at bay. If a Demoncrat gets elected then security will go down hill and all the things Bush has done to stop the suicide bombers will be lost – Then we will be attacked, I dont want this.
I will give up any and all freedoms to kill the terrorists at all costs, Im just ver very afraid for my families safety.
Have you studied WW I or WW II? I don’t know if these wars were discussed at your high school (assuming you graduated). Next year marks at least year 30 of Muslim nut jobs attackin and taking innocent Americans prisoners. Watch the news about Iranian speed boats harrassing 3 USN ships this week. Under all international law the American craft were fully justified to eliminate the threat. You seem to think thatBush and his military are a bunch of trigger happy idiots. It took incredible control by the Officers and Crews of those ships to not blow the three Iranian boats out of the water. After the attack against the United States Ship Cole most thinking people may wonder if our Navy was to restrained. Walter, HELLOOOO! I am sorry to have to break the news to you but the Muslim nut jobs declared a world wide war against the West over 30 years ago. Study history it is your friend. Look up what happened this day for Tuesday September 11th, 2001. You need to know.
By not mentioning the military, I wasn’t excluding them. I am patriotic. I love and respect our military. God bless them.
President Bush is the Commander in Chief.
And he should be recognized. Did you miss the Demoncrat antics in Washington over the past months, playing with the military budget?
Heres what I dont understand. Logically speaking, if we are fighting
terrorists in Iraq, then they arent really terrorists. That would be
gorilla warfare, not terrorism. Terrorists are meant to terrorize
regular people. So tell me why a terrorist would choose to fight the
worlds most powerful army?
They know they cant win, no matter what
they do. Logically speaking the only way to have a chance is to
weaken the will of the citizens.
This could logically be done by suicide bombings in the US. But you
all say George Bush has stopped these.
How?
Terrorist networks have
over a Billion dollars to work with. Are you telling me they
couldn’t send some guy over to Mexico to just walk across the border
with some migrant workers, then go to Walmart and blow himself up?
What has George Bush done to stop this from happening? Do you really
believe the terrorists rather fight the worlds strongest army rather
than actually come to the US and kill some people?
You folks are really gullible. Its very simple logic. In all these years not even
one attempt on an American life inside the US. Even the 911
hijackers who were mostly from our ally Saudi Arabia had passports.
Are you telling me a terrorist network with billions of dollars and
hundreds of thousands of followers willing to blow themselves up
cant manage to get into the country?
The bomb supplies could even be
gathered in the US very easily.
So why have the terrorists CHOSEN not to come to the US? Or has
George Bush really stopped them? If you get all your news from FOXnews,
you will only get the presidents side of the story. If you really
want to think logically and be honest about the situation, you have
to get away fro all this Democrat Republican garbage and crack open
a book. Most of whats going on has evolved over the past 20 to 30
years and much of it is not in the mainstream press.
Who watches Fox? I read, Newsmax (many different authors), Human Events (many different authors), Opinion Journal, local news (with much doubt), etc.
Here’s some quick clips, hopefully clearly stating why I get so mad when people slander President Bush.
Failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut
and ran when al-Qaida ambushed U.S. Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that
called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons
inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the
U.N. inspectors back in.
That administration also failed to respond to the murder of
U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in
Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa by
firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in
Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when it had
a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport
security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have
prevented 9/11.
In short, to every act of war against the United States during the
1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse.
By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a
hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new
administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat.
As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan
that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did
not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.
And, as for why the President Bush went into Iraq:
In fact, the first — and last — rationale presented for the war by the
Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war
was not the destruction of WMD but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or
regime change.
This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international
outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control
agreements it embodied, including U.N. resolutions 687 and 689, and the
15 subsequent U.N. resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of
these, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum
to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm — or else. The
ultimatum expired on Dec. 7, 2002, and America went to war three months
later.
Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements
that made up the Gulf War truce — and not the alleged existence of Iraqi
WMDs — was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops
to Iraq.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam
by force when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear
violation of the Gulf truce.
This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to
Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in
October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and
it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team,
including the secretary of state, the secretary of Defense and the
director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American
troops into Iraq in March 2003.
The Authorization for the Use of Force bill — passed by majorities of
both parties in both Houses — is the legal basis for the president’s
war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent
to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas”
clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics
of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to
stockpiles of WMD. On the other hand, 12 of the reasons for going to war
refer to U.N. resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.
On the very eve of the war, the
president gave Iraq an option to avoid a conflict with American forces.
On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour
ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if
Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American
invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’
crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of
Saddam.
If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left
in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign
Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The
idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the
truce accords of 1991 and U.N. Resolution 1441. This would have led to
Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMD
or WMD programs that Saddam may have had — without necessitating a war.
Ignoring — and distorting — the facts about how and why his country went
to war, slanders the president — and therefore his
country — that have become a familiar aspect of our political life.
The charges are transparently designed to destroy the authority of
America’s commander in chief, while his troops are in harm’s way — an
unprecedented sabotage of a war in progress.
The argument that Bush manipulated the facts about Iraqi WMD to
pursue a war policy that was aggressive and unfounded is demonstrably
false.
Bush acted on the consensus of every major intelligence agency,
including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the
Jordanian — all of whom believed that Saddam had WMD. In other words, he
cannot reasonably be accused of inventing the existence of Saddam’s WMD,
although that is precisely what Gore and other demagogues on the left do
on an almost daily basis.
Since every Democratic senator who voted for the war was provided by the
administration with a copy the intelligence data on Saddam’s WMD, the
charge made by Democratic senators that they were deceived is both cynical and hypocritical as well as false.
By 2001, when Bush took up residence in the Oval Office, Saddam had already
broken the Gulf War truce many times over.
American pilots were engaged in a low-intensity armed conflict with the
Iraqi military over the “no-fly zones” the truce had created. Clinton
and Gore had allowed Saddam to get away with breaking the truce he had
signed for two reasons. First because they were preoccupied with the
fallout from Clinton’s affair in the White House; but more importantly,
because ever since Vietnam the Democrats had shown no interest in
deploying American troops to protect the national interest (and thus had
opposed the first Gulf War).
In 1998, Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Why would he do
so if it was not his intention to do mischief as well?
Specifically, why would he do so if it was not his intention to develop
the weapons programs, the WMD programs, that the Gulf truce outlawed and
that the U.N. inspectors were there to stop?
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that Saddam’s mischief could have
serious consequences, not because Saddam had a role in 9/11, but because
Saddam celebrated and endorsed the attacks, had attempted to assassinate
an American president and had hosted terrorist organizations and
gatherings engaged in a holy war against the West.
The only reason Saddam allowed the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq in
the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its
border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on
the border of a country which was violating international law unless he
meant to enforce the law. But the troops were there to go to war only if
Saddam Hussein failed to honor the 1991 truce, not to slake the
aggressive appetites of the president of the United States, as America’s
enemies — and Al Gore — maintain.
Saddam’s offer to allow the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq coincided
with Bush’s appearance at the U.N. in September 2002. His message to the
U.N. was that it needed to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.
If U.N. did not enforce the resolutions that Saddam had violated, the
United States would do so in its stead. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore marked
the occasion by publicly attacking their own president for putting such
pressure on Saddam Hussein. This was the beginning of the Democratic
campaign to sabotage an American war in progress, which has continued
without letup ever since.
As a result of Bush’s appeal, the U.N. Security Council voted
unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline
to expire on Dec. 7, 2002.
By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons
programs or “serious consequences would follow.” The ultimatum was U.N.
Resolution 1441 — the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf
War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance.
Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies, Russia and
France, would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the
reason the United States and Britain went to war without U.N. approval,
not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures, which is simply
another Democratic deception.
Since war was not the president’s preference, first, last, or otherwise,
the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House
spent three months after the Dec. 7 deadline trying by diplomatic means
to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the U.N.
resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to
full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War
truce that they, as Security Council members, had ratified and promised
to enforce.
Virtually all of the claims that make up the core of the Democrats’
attacks on Bush’s decision to go to war — that he manipulated data on
aluminum tubes to present them as elements of an Iraqi nuclear program
and that he lied about an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake uranium — were
never part of the administration’s rationale for the use of force, and
were not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force
congressional legislation.
They were political attempts to persuade the reluctant Europeans to
enforce the U.N. ultimatum and international law. Even then, by offering
Saddam an escape clause, Bush provided an alternative to war. If Saddam
would re-settle in Russia or some other friendly state, the United
States would not invade.
For all the president’s Democratic critics, all these facts count
for nothing. In their place is the great American Satan, George Bush.
According to the Democrats, America went to war for reasons that are either illegitimate or immoral or both.
They suggest the sending of American troops to Iraq was an imperial aggression, orchestrated by the president and his advisors who manipulated the evidence, deceived the people, and ignored the U.N. to carry out their malign intent.
What Bush actually ignored was the French, who built Saddam’s nuclear
reactor, collaborated with Saddam’s theft of the “oil for food”
billions, and threatened to veto any attempt to enforce international
law or the U.N. ultimatum.
Bush also ignored the Russians, who supplied two-thirds of Saddam’s
weapons, helped him sabotage the U.N. sanctions, and refused to enforce
the U.N. ultimatum.
What Bush did not ignore were the 17 U.N. resolutions designed to keep
the Middle East peace and protect the world from the consequences of its
failure.
First of all, the best chance to get Sadam was when Bushes dad was right on the border after the Kuwait war, and he made the choice to stop right there. Rebublicans also supported Sadam in the 80s by giving him chemical weapons to fight Iran.
Also, if regime change is that important, how come we dont want regime change in North Korea, they actually have Nucular weapons as George would say, so why not go after them instead of Sadam?
Remember, I posted saying I changed my mind about Bush being a criminal – Reread that post.
Dam right you are out of here, I blew you away with my argument saying that terrorists could still easily come to our country rather than fighting a losing battle against the strongest military in the history of civlization.
Walter, you have stated no facts in any of your posts. You have blow away nobody. You take the liberal talking points and regurgitate that spew over and over with no factual basis. Answer the earlier question, if President Bush is a criminal, where are the charges in the incredibly partisan congress? There will be none because it’s easier to slander as you do in you posts than to prove anything. Yes, I do watch Fox News, along with reading several newspapers a day and scanning multiple news web sites. Stop the assumption that because someone doesn’t agree with you that they are ignorant. Your posts reflect ignorance of any facts and a total buy in to the general slash and burn tactics of the Bush haters. Now, back to the actual topic in question if you please, or if you don’t Walter. Maybe you should go back to Moveon.org with the rest of whatever kind you are.
Nobody important, if you are so smart please tell me why no terrostists ever come to the US, instead they chose to fight the most powerful army on Earth.
And when in gods name have you ever heard a Democrat make that argument? – The Dems and Repubs are part of the problem you stupid deaf idiot.
You clearly havnt read my other posts. All you can do is regurgitate, none of my arguments have supported Democrats one bit, if you have a brain in your head, where did you come up with this??
Personally, I think they fighting us over there because the loathe freedom. Widespread freedom in the middle east would be the death of their cause. They will do whatever they have to do to prevent us from being successful. They can;t ignore Iraq totally and allow us to have an easy time there. Why we haven’t seen any violence in the U.S., is open to speculation. It would certainly help their cause. They are already here to some degree. Perhaps they are not strong enough yet, they are biding their time, or there are things we are not told.
Pardon me, what does your first statement have to with anything you have said? Why do you think they don’t come over here? And what does this have to do with this topic or insurance? This is an opinion page and you have stated your rather stupid opinions. Just go away and hang out with all the other nutters regularly posting unrelated tripe on this site. Unless you would actually care to give us your informed opinion on an actual pertinent insurance topic. No, I didn’t think so. By the way, the reason I called them liberal talking points is because they are. You need to develop your own thoughts, if you actually have any.
I dont even bother to read the other posts. The fact is everybodys wrong. George Bush is doing the best he can, if everyone were a Republican the world would be a better place!! Ive got enough money to sit back on my fat but and watch other people die, so in all due respect, thats what im gonna do.
Why should I bother to read some one elses post, I know what they are saying without even reading it.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth Walter. You need a life and some thoughts that are coherent. I don’t defend the President, I just would like some of the vicious charges to be substantiated by proof. I feel that way about any individual who is slandered by thoughtless and ignorant idiots such as yourself. As far as defending him, I have no interest. I will let long term history determine that as always.
Of course you do make a very good point though, one that I have never heard in any taking points or even in the media, and that is:
Why dont muslim terrorists blend in with Mexican migrant workers and just walk across the unguarded border? If they are willing to blow themselves up, I think they would make more waves killing 20 civilians in the mall rather than a few soliders in Iraq. It is a really great point ive never heard mentioned anywhere till now, and it makes me think.
YOU ARE A REAL JERK WALTER, BUT THAT ONE POINT IS REALLY GOOD, AND ORIGINAL, nice contribution!
We have two immediate family members serving in the military. Thought I would let you know the surge is working and they are kicking the Taliban’s butt. Also, the Iraqis overall now trust them since our country did not cut and run like they expected us to. Why some people in Iraq still think America made a mistake (mostly the liberal media) more and more now see Bush and our troops as a benefit to their long time survival.
I agree with that statement. The current administration and congress should be held in total contempt for not handling the border situation at all. Do we even want to start the illegal alien garbage that comes out when this topic gets started?
How dare you bring up the topic!! People who buy or build next to an airport and complain about noise and all the other junk that are endemic to airport operations make me laugh. Move or don’t go there in the first place.
After reading the blogs, this is how it shakes out: An illegal Mex-Alien circumvented the US-MEX border by hiring out on a fishing vessel out of beautiful Acapulco. The fish ship headed toward the Alaskan waters. Stopped in Vancouver for breakfast @ MacDonalds which sells the best Canadian Bacon egg-muffins with honey. The Mex-Alien did not board the ship. Instead he decided to “head East young man” for his fame-and-fortune. Somewhere about the North Dakota border with Canada he crossed over. Made his way over to a Wisconsin dairy farm and impressed everyone with his work ethic. But the “Call of the East Coast” of the land of milk-and-honey kept beckoning him to find his economic niche in life. Upon his arrival “there”, got a job as a dishwasher, saved all his money, deposited in a bank. The Bank having to report SIR’s (suspicious activity from ‘brown eyed-folks) complied with the SEC and that National Law about $10,000 and above withdrawals, made such report. Well, wouldn’t you believe it, someone “inside” (probably an educated brown-eyed person) warn the Mex-Alien about such activity that would lead to the confiscation of his hard-earned money. Someone at the bank allowed the withdrawal of his money before the Eagle swooped down on him like a fish in an Alaskan river. Well, with his hard-earned money he built this house of Concrete/Metal. Insured it with a Puerto Rican Allstate agent. Then one day the French who were fed up with U.S. chest-pounding hate-radio-talk show hosts who kept mouthing over the public air-space about boycotting French Fries because France had the gall to question OUR POLICY toward Saddam. The French decided to shake our foundations, walls, roofs of homeowners next to this NY Airport. So it sent out this CONCORDE to do just that. However, it would need jet aircraft escort protection. The French Embassy arranged for George W. Bush, being an experienced pilot with the US AIR FORCE in such matters…to Volunteer!! That’s an Illegal Act and made him a criminal. Here’s the clincher. Arabs resembling Mex-Aliens (look-a-likes, brown-eyed,black hair, same height, etc.) caught a fishing vessel from Tampico. It headed for the herring fishing waters off Maine. The ship stopped for MacDonalds pancakes in Norfolk, Virginia. Did not reboard the vessel, instead headed toward NY with the intent to blow up a Walmart. The day they planned to this, there was a strike by octogenarians and Spanish-Speaking employees at, wouldn’t you believe it, that very Walmart. The Arabs had to change their plans and opted to blow up this expensive concrete/metal house. But FOILED AGAIN! As they neared it, this damn CONCORDE flew right over it caused it to shatter! As they looked up they saw this American Jet providing escort protection for the CONCORDE. The American had a Red-Scarf and waived to them saying…”Not today, ya’all hear!” The Mex-Alein was heart-broken and decided to head for the Plano Texas cotton fields and start all over agin’. Plan B is to open a Mexican Restaurant and sell Jalapeno Fish. Toastitos will buy him out and create a sensational Tortilla Jalapeno Fish tasting corn chip. The Bowl College Series will create a new football bowl right there at the Irving Texas Cowbay Stadium. The one without a roof. No danger of a CONCORDE ever blowing its roof off. You see, dem’ Texans with the help of Mex-Aliens, think of everyting. There, that’s exactly how it all shakes out. Now, you blogger sell that ‘nsurance, ya hear!
After a three-week trial, which included testimony of six engineers and a noise expert from the Port Authority, the jury took five hours to return its verdict, Wilkofsky said. He said Allstate settled with the Ferrantis on Dec.
Whether building code / standards from local authorities allowing such type of construction (which will get damaged by airplanes)? It could be underwriting ignorance.
After a three-week trial, which included testimony of six engineers and a noise expert from the Port Authority, the jury took five hours to return its verdict, Wilkofsky said. He said Allstate settled with the Ferrantis on Dec. 21. Boy this story smell of bad faith. I guess I will read the count papers on this one.
Boy, does this one smell. He’s the contractor AND the period of time before he reported it. Sounds to me like Allstate was given the shaft.
This reminds me of a false claim in Kenner, LA, where the woman claimed that the loose bricks in her home were caused by a plane crash. The homeowners insurance denied, but after some time, I saw in the newspapers where she ended up collecting some money from the airline.
What “smells” about this claim is that Allstate took all these years to finally relent, and pay $995,000. Insurers don’t pay this kind of money unless a claim is 100% legitimate, and the value is substantially higher in value. Too many insurers play this “hold the money” game, and eventually pay, but end up paying far less than the real value of the claim. The delays monetarily favor the insurers.
Hey AMC, I have a crack in my house. I think an airplane went by once, I don’t remember but I think it was big and loud. Will you pay for my crack? It will only cost $1MM.
Will Allstate now subrogate this to Air France’s carrier?
This is also going to be an interesting case in terms of precedent.
How many thousands of homes are near airports with a high volume of “heavy” traffic (747’s and such) where vibration is a normal occurrence?
My area is on the edge of an Air Force supersonic test corridor and 5-10 sonic booms a day are not uncommon at times. These shake every building out here when they occur, sometimes quite severely.
Does this award now set a precedent for homeowners to file claims for stucco cracks, ill-fitting windows, foundation cracks and the like simply because they live in an area with high volume air traffic? What about homes near railroad tracks?
How many class actions will now spring up as a result of this?
Ok you wondered what all of the mold industry people would do next? It’s off to the Big Apple to work plane vibrator claims.
You must be joking AMC. Insurers pay millions of dollars of money they don’t owe to stay out of court. Jackpot juries and predudiced courts are to be avoided at all possible. Also, the legal costs for cases lasting for years and years are huge. This may or may not be a valid loss, but it may just be cheaper than a huge unjustified judgement, punitive damages and ten years worth of legal costs. I have seen $50,000 claims fought with $500,000 legal expenses. That’s the real legal world.
In Texas the mold problem ended at the same time that the policy changed. No coverage = no more mold. Just like magic! Hillary is from New York now so she will fix this. Wonder if Bill or Hillary have any mold or plane vibrator issues?
New York needs Hillary now more than ever.
I’m with Desert Rat. I live near a Vulcan plant and my house shakes like crazy whenever they are blasting rocks. Unfortunately there are at least several hundred houses near this place. Some there for 30 years and there is a subdivision with 300 homes being built now. I did not find out the plant was there till after I moved in several years ago. Really this area should have been zoned all commercial if you ask me. Can I sue for the cracks in my ceiling and along the walls? My neighborhood has only been in existence for four years and as soon as people move in, a quarter of them stay one year, six months and then they’re out. This is also true of the KB homes across the street from the plant. Every other house has a “FOR SALE” sign. The shaking is pretty nerve-racking sometimes. It has to be affecting the foundation. The property appraisals only go up a couple of grand a year if that tells you anything. I love the close proximity to the interstate and the fact that the fire department is practically behind my house.
Just wondering because this could truly be precedent setting to the point where you have lawsuits on a grand scale like the mold debate, Big Tobacco, etc.
Hey Plano Taxas, I cant wait till Bush is run out of office, then that criminal can come back and live with your redneck sorry but back in Texass. You rednecks can have him.
“I can’t wait until Bush is run out of office”???
In case you weren’t aware, Bush is not being, nor will he be, “run out of office”. His two terms are up and he will leave office in the same manner Clinton did (with the possible excepton of vandalizing the place on his way out).
As for criminal, if he is a criminal then I’m sure your Democrat controlled congress is leading the charge at this very minute to have him impeached. Right?
Oh, wait, I forgot, they were too busy last year holding roll call votes on 1,207 bills but only passing 141 of them with 47 of those being for post offices.
If it weren’t for all that work I’m sure they would be presenting their slam-dunk case for impeachment. Heck they might even have extra time in-between to get us out of Iraq like they promised you.
Sorry to get this off topic but I couldn’t resist.
We have a saying (and a bumper sticker that says the same thing with Hillary’s ugly mug on it) in Texas,
“LIFE’S A ***** SO DON’T VOTE FOR ONE”
Austin is the one wild far out Liberal anything goes city in Texas. We don’t want Hillary either. Keep her in New York.
By the way, you don’t have to make up things about Bush. he provides his own reasons.
Actually Bush declared war without the appoval of congress – That is against the constitution – Therefore he is a criminal. And dont tell me one word about Democrats – Im not a Democrat, im an Independant.
Walter, you may not be a Demoncrat, but you are an idiot.
God Bless GWB and thanks to him we haven’t had another attack since 9/11.
OK good point. Sometimes I over react. I actually like Bush. Hes just what he has to, to keep us safe. If that means going to war all over the world to chase terrorists then thats what we should do. Weve killed over 650,000 Iraqis becasue they are terrorists, and if we dont kill them, they will come to the US through the Mexican border, which is wide open. There are already sleeper cells and suicde bombers everywhere just waiting to strike at any moment. But somehow Geeorge Bush as held them at bay. If a Demoncrat gets elected then security will go down hill and all the things Bush has done to stop the suicide bombers will be lost – Then we will be attacked, I dont want this.
I will give up any and all freedoms to kill the terrorists at all costs, Im just ver very afraid for my families safety.
Have you studied WW I or WW II? I don’t know if these wars were discussed at your high school (assuming you graduated). Next year marks at least year 30 of Muslim nut jobs attackin and taking innocent Americans prisoners. Watch the news about Iranian speed boats harrassing 3 USN ships this week. Under all international law the American craft were fully justified to eliminate the threat. You seem to think thatBush and his military are a bunch of trigger happy idiots. It took incredible control by the Officers and Crews of those ships to not blow the three Iranian boats out of the water. After the attack against the United States Ship Cole most thinking people may wonder if our Navy was to restrained. Walter, HELLOOOO! I am sorry to have to break the news to you but the Muslim nut jobs declared a world wide war against the West over 30 years ago. Study history it is your friend. Look up what happened this day for Tuesday September 11th, 2001. You need to know.
Thanks to Bush? I don’t know if that’s a fair statement, ad.
I’d rather say thanks to the men and women in our military. I think they are the actual reasons why we haven’t been attacked on home soil since 9/11.
By not mentioning the military, I wasn’t excluding them. I am patriotic. I love and respect our military. God bless them.
President Bush is the Commander in Chief.
And he should be recognized. Did you miss the Demoncrat antics in Washington over the past months, playing with the military budget?
Heres what I dont understand. Logically speaking, if we are fighting
terrorists in Iraq, then they arent really terrorists. That would be
gorilla warfare, not terrorism. Terrorists are meant to terrorize
regular people. So tell me why a terrorist would choose to fight the
worlds most powerful army?
They know they cant win, no matter what
they do. Logically speaking the only way to have a chance is to
weaken the will of the citizens.
This could logically be done by suicide bombings in the US. But you
all say George Bush has stopped these.
How?
Terrorist networks have
over a Billion dollars to work with. Are you telling me they
couldn’t send some guy over to Mexico to just walk across the border
with some migrant workers, then go to Walmart and blow himself up?
What has George Bush done to stop this from happening? Do you really
believe the terrorists rather fight the worlds strongest army rather
than actually come to the US and kill some people?
You folks are really gullible. Its very simple logic. In all these years not even
one attempt on an American life inside the US. Even the 911
hijackers who were mostly from our ally Saudi Arabia had passports.
Are you telling me a terrorist network with billions of dollars and
hundreds of thousands of followers willing to blow themselves up
cant manage to get into the country?
The bomb supplies could even be
gathered in the US very easily.
So why have the terrorists CHOSEN not to come to the US? Or has
George Bush really stopped them? If you get all your news from FOXnews,
you will only get the presidents side of the story. If you really
want to think logically and be honest about the situation, you have
to get away fro all this Democrat Republican garbage and crack open
a book. Most of whats going on has evolved over the past 20 to 30
years and much of it is not in the mainstream press.
What does this have to do with the house in NY with damage from a Concorde? misbloggers
Who watches Fox? I read, Newsmax (many different authors), Human Events (many different authors), Opinion Journal, local news (with much doubt), etc.
Here’s some quick clips, hopefully clearly stating why I get so mad when people slander President Bush.
Failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut
and ran when al-Qaida ambushed U.S. Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that
called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons
inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the
U.N. inspectors back in.
That administration also failed to respond to the murder of
U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in
Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa by
firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in
Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama bin Laden when it had
a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport
security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have
prevented 9/11.
In short, to every act of war against the United States during the
1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse.
By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a
hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new
administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat.
As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan
that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did
not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.
And, as for why the President Bush went into Iraq:
In fact, the first — and last — rationale presented for the war by the
Bush administration in every formal government statement about the war
was not the destruction of WMD but the removal of Saddam Hussein, or
regime change.
This regime change was necessary because Saddam was an international
outlaw. He had violated the 1991 Gulf War truce and all the arms control
agreements it embodied, including U.N. resolutions 687 and 689, and the
15 subsequent U.N. resolutions designed to enforce them. The last of
these, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, was itself a war ultimatum
to Saddam giving him “one final opportunity” to disarm — or else. The
ultimatum expired on Dec. 7, 2002, and America went to war three months
later.
Saddam’s violation of the arms control agreements
that made up the Gulf War truce — and not the alleged existence of Iraqi
WMDs — was the legal, moral and actual basis for sending American troops
to Iraq.
Al Gore and Bill Clinton had themselves called for the removal of Saddam
by force when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, a clear
violation of the Gulf truce.
This was the reason Clinton and Gore sent an “Iraqi Liberation Act” to
Congress that year; it is why the congressional Democrats voted in
October 2002 to authorize the president to use force to remove him; and
it is the reason the entire Clinton-Gore national security team,
including the secretary of state, the secretary of Defense and the
director of Central Intelligence, supported Bush when he sent American
troops into Iraq in March 2003.
The Authorization for the Use of Force bill — passed by majorities of
both parties in both Houses — is the legal basis for the president’s
war, which Democrats have since betrayed along with the troops they sent
to the battlefield. The Authorization bill begins with 23 “whereas”
clauses justifying the war. Contrary to Gore and the Democratic critics
of the Bush administration, only two of these clauses refer to
stockpiles of WMD. On the other hand, 12 of the reasons for going to war
refer to U.N. resolutions violated by Saddam Hussein.
On the very eve of the war, the
president gave Iraq an option to avoid a conflict with American forces.
On March 17, two days before the invasion, Bush issued an eleventh-hour
ultimatum to Saddam: leave the country or face war. In other words, if
Saddam had agreed to leave Iraq, there would have been no American
invasion. It is one of the most revealing features of the Democrats’
crusade against George Bush that they blame the war on him instead of
Saddam.
If its offer had been accepted, the Bush administration would have left
in place a regime run by the Ba’athist Party and headed by Foreign
Minister Tariq Aziz or some comparable figure from the old regime. The
idea was, that without Saddam, even such a bad regime would honor the
truce accords of 1991 and U.N. Resolution 1441. This would have led to
Iraq’s cooperation with the UN inspectors and the destruction of any WMD
or WMD programs that Saddam may have had — without necessitating a war.
Ignoring — and distorting — the facts about how and why his country went
to war, slanders the president — and therefore his
country — that have become a familiar aspect of our political life.
The charges are transparently designed to destroy the authority of
America’s commander in chief, while his troops are in harm’s way — an
unprecedented sabotage of a war in progress.
The argument that Bush manipulated the facts about Iraqi WMD to
pursue a war policy that was aggressive and unfounded is demonstrably
false.
Bush acted on the consensus of every major intelligence agency,
including the British, the French, the Russian, the German and the
Jordanian — all of whom believed that Saddam had WMD. In other words, he
cannot reasonably be accused of inventing the existence of Saddam’s WMD,
although that is precisely what Gore and other demagogues on the left do
on an almost daily basis.
Since every Democratic senator who voted for the war was provided by the
administration with a copy the intelligence data on Saddam’s WMD, the
charge made by Democratic senators that they were deceived is both cynical and hypocritical as well as false.
By 2001, when Bush took up residence in the Oval Office, Saddam had already
broken the Gulf War truce many times over.
American pilots were engaged in a low-intensity armed conflict with the
Iraqi military over the “no-fly zones” the truce had created. Clinton
and Gore had allowed Saddam to get away with breaking the truce he had
signed for two reasons. First because they were preoccupied with the
fallout from Clinton’s affair in the White House; but more importantly,
because ever since Vietnam the Democrats had shown no interest in
deploying American troops to protect the national interest (and thus had
opposed the first Gulf War).
In 1998, Saddam expelled the U.N. inspectors from Iraq. Why would he do
so if it was not his intention to do mischief as well?
Specifically, why would he do so if it was not his intention to develop
the weapons programs, the WMD programs, that the Gulf truce outlawed and
that the U.N. inspectors were there to stop?
The terrorist attacks of 9/11 showed that Saddam’s mischief could have
serious consequences, not because Saddam had a role in 9/11, but because
Saddam celebrated and endorsed the attacks, had attempted to assassinate
an American president and had hosted terrorist organizations and
gatherings engaged in a holy war against the West.
The only reason Saddam allowed the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq in
the fall of 2002 was because Bush placed 200,000 U.S. troops on its
border. It would have been irresponsible of Bush to put those troops on
the border of a country which was violating international law unless he
meant to enforce the law. But the troops were there to go to war only if
Saddam Hussein failed to honor the 1991 truce, not to slake the
aggressive appetites of the president of the United States, as America’s
enemies — and Al Gore — maintain.
Saddam’s offer to allow the U.N. inspectors to return to Iraq coincided
with Bush’s appearance at the U.N. in September 2002. His message to the
U.N. was that it needed to enforce its resolutions or become irrelevant.
If U.N. did not enforce the resolutions that Saddam had violated, the
United States would do so in its stead. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore marked
the occasion by publicly attacking their own president for putting such
pressure on Saddam Hussein. This was the beginning of the Democratic
campaign to sabotage an American war in progress, which has continued
without letup ever since.
As a result of Bush’s appeal, the U.N. Security Council voted
unanimously to present Saddam with an ultimatum, and a 30-day deadline
to expire on Dec. 7, 2002.
By that date he was to honor the truce and destroy his illegal weapons
programs or “serious consequences would follow.” The ultimatum was U.N.
Resolution 1441 — the seventeenth attempt to enforce a truce in the Gulf
War of 1991. The deadline came and went without Saddam’s compliance.
Saddam knew that his military suppliers and political allies, Russia and
France, would never authorize its enforcement by arms. This is the
reason the United States and Britain went to war without U.N. approval,
not because George Bush preferred unilateral measures, which is simply
another Democratic deception.
Since war was not the president’s preference, first, last, or otherwise,
the United States did not immediately attack. Instead, the White House
spent three months after the Dec. 7 deadline trying by diplomatic means
to persuade the French and Russians and Chinese to back the U.N.
resolution they had voted for and to force Saddam to open his country to
full inspections. In other words, to honor the terms of the Gulf War
truce that they, as Security Council members, had ratified and promised
to enforce.
Virtually all of the claims that make up the core of the Democrats’
attacks on Bush’s decision to go to war — that he manipulated data on
aluminum tubes to present them as elements of an Iraqi nuclear program
and that he lied about an Iraqi attempt to buy yellowcake uranium — were
never part of the administration’s rationale for the use of force, and
were not mentioned in the Authorization for the Use of Force
congressional legislation.
They were political attempts to persuade the reluctant Europeans to
enforce the U.N. ultimatum and international law. Even then, by offering
Saddam an escape clause, Bush provided an alternative to war. If Saddam
would re-settle in Russia or some other friendly state, the United
States would not invade.
For all the president’s Democratic critics, all these facts count
for nothing. In their place is the great American Satan, George Bush.
According to the Democrats, America went to war for reasons that are either illegitimate or immoral or both.
They suggest the sending of American troops to Iraq was an imperial aggression, orchestrated by the president and his advisors who manipulated the evidence, deceived the people, and ignored the U.N. to carry out their malign intent.
What Bush actually ignored was the French, who built Saddam’s nuclear
reactor, collaborated with Saddam’s theft of the “oil for food”
billions, and threatened to veto any attempt to enforce international
law or the U.N. ultimatum.
Bush also ignored the Russians, who supplied two-thirds of Saddam’s
weapons, helped him sabotage the U.N. sanctions, and refused to enforce
the U.N. ultimatum.
What Bush did not ignore were the 17 U.N. resolutions designed to keep
the Middle East peace and protect the world from the consequences of its
failure.
Read the first message by Plano Taxas, he somehow brought up Hillary Clinton, as if she has anything to do with this – Thats how it all started.
First of all, the best chance to get Sadam was when Bushes dad was right on the border after the Kuwait war, and he made the choice to stop right there. Rebublicans also supported Sadam in the 80s by giving him chemical weapons to fight Iran.
Also, if regime change is that important, how come we dont want regime change in North Korea, they actually have Nucular weapons as George would say, so why not go after them instead of Sadam?
Did you…….
And how does your statement address the accusation of President Bush being a criminal?
Walter, I am afraid I’m out of here. I have a job and people waiting on me for other things.
Remember, I posted saying I changed my mind about Bush being a criminal – Reread that post.
Dam right you are out of here, I blew you away with my argument saying that terrorists could still easily come to our country rather than fighting a losing battle against the strongest military in the history of civlization.
Its pure and simpe logic.
Walter, you have stated no facts in any of your posts. You have blow away nobody. You take the liberal talking points and regurgitate that spew over and over with no factual basis. Answer the earlier question, if President Bush is a criminal, where are the charges in the incredibly partisan congress? There will be none because it’s easier to slander as you do in you posts than to prove anything. Yes, I do watch Fox News, along with reading several newspapers a day and scanning multiple news web sites. Stop the assumption that because someone doesn’t agree with you that they are ignorant. Your posts reflect ignorance of any facts and a total buy in to the general slash and burn tactics of the Bush haters. Now, back to the actual topic in question if you please, or if you don’t Walter. Maybe you should go back to Moveon.org with the rest of whatever kind you are.
“Dam right you are out of here, I blew you away with my argument…” What’s next? Yeah, and my dad could beat up your dad!!!
What bunch of morons you people are. Entertaining, but morons still.
Nobody important, if you are so smart please tell me why no terrostists ever come to the US, instead they chose to fight the most powerful army on Earth.
And when in gods name have you ever heard a Democrat make that argument? – The Dems and Repubs are part of the problem you stupid deaf idiot.
You clearly havnt read my other posts. All you can do is regurgitate, none of my arguments have supported Democrats one bit, if you have a brain in your head, where did you come up with this??
Personally, I think they fighting us over there because the loathe freedom. Widespread freedom in the middle east would be the death of their cause. They will do whatever they have to do to prevent us from being successful. They can;t ignore Iraq totally and allow us to have an easy time there. Why we haven’t seen any violence in the U.S., is open to speculation. It would certainly help their cause. They are already here to some degree. Perhaps they are not strong enough yet, they are biding their time, or there are things we are not told.
EOM
Pardon me, what does your first statement have to with anything you have said? Why do you think they don’t come over here? And what does this have to do with this topic or insurance? This is an opinion page and you have stated your rather stupid opinions. Just go away and hang out with all the other nutters regularly posting unrelated tripe on this site. Unless you would actually care to give us your informed opinion on an actual pertinent insurance topic. No, I didn’t think so. By the way, the reason I called them liberal talking points is because they are. You need to develop your own thoughts, if you actually have any.
I completely forgot to mark it on my calendar!
Thanks for reminding me!
I thought the pain I was experiencing was from Walter’s postings. Now I know it was just my panties in a twist. Thanks.
I dont even bother to read the other posts. The fact is everybodys wrong. George Bush is doing the best he can, if everyone were a Republican the world would be a better place!! Ive got enough money to sit back on my fat but and watch other people die, so in all due respect, thats what im gonna do.
Why should I bother to read some one elses post, I know what they are saying without even reading it.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth Walter. You need a life and some thoughts that are coherent. I don’t defend the President, I just would like some of the vicious charges to be substantiated by proof. I feel that way about any individual who is slandered by thoughtless and ignorant idiots such as yourself. As far as defending him, I have no interest. I will let long term history determine that as always.
Of course you do make a very good point though, one that I have never heard in any taking points or even in the media, and that is:
Why dont muslim terrorists blend in with Mexican migrant workers and just walk across the unguarded border? If they are willing to blow themselves up, I think they would make more waves killing 20 civilians in the mall rather than a few soliders in Iraq. It is a really great point ive never heard mentioned anywhere till now, and it makes me think.
YOU ARE A REAL JERK WALTER, BUT THAT ONE POINT IS REALLY GOOD, AND ORIGINAL, nice contribution!
We have two immediate family members serving in the military. Thought I would let you know the surge is working and they are kicking the Taliban’s butt. Also, the Iraqis overall now trust them since our country did not cut and run like they expected us to. Why some people in Iraq still think America made a mistake (mostly the liberal media) more and more now see Bush and our troops as a benefit to their long time survival.
I agree with that statement. The current administration and congress should be held in total contempt for not handling the border situation at all. Do we even want to start the illegal alien garbage that comes out when this topic gets started?
Have there been other claims in the area for the same thing?
eom
How dare you bring up the topic!! People who buy or build next to an airport and complain about noise and all the other junk that are endemic to airport operations make me laugh. Move or don’t go there in the first place.
This particular home i believe was built of concrete .
To be honest I’m surprised Allstate insured it since it was a non-standard home and not traditional frame construction.
After reading the blogs, this is how it shakes out: An illegal Mex-Alien circumvented the US-MEX border by hiring out on a fishing vessel out of beautiful Acapulco. The fish ship headed toward the Alaskan waters. Stopped in Vancouver for breakfast @ MacDonalds which sells the best Canadian Bacon egg-muffins with honey. The Mex-Alien did not board the ship. Instead he decided to “head East young man” for his fame-and-fortune. Somewhere about the North Dakota border with Canada he crossed over. Made his way over to a Wisconsin dairy farm and impressed everyone with his work ethic. But the “Call of the East Coast” of the land of milk-and-honey kept beckoning him to find his economic niche in life. Upon his arrival “there”, got a job as a dishwasher, saved all his money, deposited in a bank. The Bank having to report SIR’s (suspicious activity from ‘brown eyed-folks) complied with the SEC and that National Law about $10,000 and above withdrawals, made such report. Well, wouldn’t you believe it, someone “inside” (probably an educated brown-eyed person) warn the Mex-Alien about such activity that would lead to the confiscation of his hard-earned money. Someone at the bank allowed the withdrawal of his money before the Eagle swooped down on him like a fish in an Alaskan river. Well, with his hard-earned money he built this house of Concrete/Metal. Insured it with a Puerto Rican Allstate agent. Then one day the French who were fed up with U.S. chest-pounding hate-radio-talk show hosts who kept mouthing over the public air-space about boycotting French Fries because France had the gall to question OUR POLICY toward Saddam. The French decided to shake our foundations, walls, roofs of homeowners next to this NY Airport. So it sent out this CONCORDE to do just that. However, it would need jet aircraft escort protection. The French Embassy arranged for George W. Bush, being an experienced pilot with the US AIR FORCE in such matters…to Volunteer!! That’s an Illegal Act and made him a criminal. Here’s the clincher. Arabs resembling Mex-Aliens (look-a-likes, brown-eyed,black hair, same height, etc.) caught a fishing vessel from Tampico. It headed for the herring fishing waters off Maine. The ship stopped for MacDonalds pancakes in Norfolk, Virginia. Did not reboard the vessel, instead headed toward NY with the intent to blow up a Walmart. The day they planned to this, there was a strike by octogenarians and Spanish-Speaking employees at, wouldn’t you believe it, that very Walmart. The Arabs had to change their plans and opted to blow up this expensive concrete/metal house. But FOILED AGAIN! As they neared it, this damn CONCORDE flew right over it caused it to shatter! As they looked up they saw this American Jet providing escort protection for the CONCORDE. The American had a Red-Scarf and waived to them saying…”Not today, ya’all hear!” The Mex-Alein was heart-broken and decided to head for the Plano Texas cotton fields and start all over agin’. Plan B is to open a Mexican Restaurant and sell Jalapeno Fish. Toastitos will buy him out and create a sensational Tortilla Jalapeno Fish tasting corn chip. The Bowl College Series will create a new football bowl right there at the Irving Texas Cowbay Stadium. The one without a roof. No danger of a CONCORDE ever blowing its roof off. You see, dem’ Texans with the help of Mex-Aliens, think of everyting. There, that’s exactly how it all shakes out. Now, you blogger sell that ‘nsurance, ya hear!
After a three-week trial, which included testimony of six engineers and a noise expert from the Port Authority, the jury took five hours to return its verdict, Wilkofsky said. He said Allstate settled with the Ferrantis on Dec.
I was not aware that the nut jobs from Daily KOS read this, or could in fact read at all!
Whether building code / standards from local authorities allowing such type of construction (which will get damaged by airplanes)? It could be underwriting ignorance.