Posted On: January 12, 2007, 1:11 pm CST
Posted By: Not Surprised
Comment:
Wow, How can anyone be surprised at this. We all knew with our current system that the lawyers would eventually win. Hey look on the bright side. As agents we will all make a whole lot more money as the property rate go through the roof. Lawyers are an agents best friend.
Without them insurance premium would be so cheap we could not make a good living.
************************************
Looks like State Farm should have had a lawyer too so their apparently all wet position on this case did not get blown away by the facts.
The problem arises when the house is destroyed by a 20 foot storm surge and the homeowner wants the carrier to pay for the entire loss under their wind coverage. When its all said and done, I think this will be overturned.
The State\’s Department of Insurance approved the policy and language. I think folks need to pay attention to the photos, videos, news reports when they show New Orleans and the Gulf cities. Many, many roofs were intact when people were being rescued from rooftops and during the helicopter rides by the state & feds.
I\’m waiting to see which one of these companies will sue first, over policy manuscripts the lawyers provided to them. Do you think the lawyers ever heard \”if it\’s not excluded, then it must be covered\”?
Also was it Market Share or greed that made the companies apparently forget that the law of large numbers does not apply to a heavy concentration of property exposures in one area.
The insurance industry may want to believe the typical anti-concurrent causation clause is clear in its meaning, but it isn\’t. And that\’s a problem.
Say the clause in use is that “We do not cover loss to any property resulting directly or indirectly from any of the following. Such a loss is excluded even if another peril or event contributed concurrently or in any sequence to cause the loss.”
This says that flood damage is excluded, even if some other peril also caused damage. What it does *not* say is that damage from the *other* peril is also excluded.
If it can be demonstrated factually that, as the homeowners in this case claimed, their home was blown off its foundation by wind, and then blown apart by wind, before the storm surge hit, then what the anti-concurrent causation clause says is that the damage from flooding is excluded.
Nowhere does it actually say that the damage from wind is excluded. And of course it\’s a contract of adhesion, so if it can be interpreted two ways, it must be interpreted in favor of the policy holder, not the company.
That\’s what the judge cited in awarding actual damages — State Farm did not demonstrate that the damage was all flood damage, and therefore excluded. If it was wind damage, it was not excluded by the anti-concurrent causation clause. Quoting the New York Times on this:
[Begin Quote]
Judge Senter agreed in a ruling that the insurers were not obligated to pay for flood damage. But he said that when both wind and water damaged or destroyed a house, it was the burden of the insurance company to prove how much of the loss was because of water and pay for any wind damage.
A clerk for Judge Senter said in a telephone interview from Gulfport that experts for State Farm acknowledged in court documents that some damage to the Broussard’s home had come from wind. But, he said, “they did not offer evidence during trial” showing how much of the damage was from water and how much from wind, as Judge Senter had required.
Ultimately, he said, the judge ruled that State Farm was liable for all the damage because the insurer had not provided enough evidence “the jury could use to segregate” the wind from the water damage.
[End Quote]
The judge left that up to the jury, after directing a verdict on the actual damages.
The language of the contract clearly requires the insurer to pay for wind damage, and State Farm admitted in court that there was wind damage, but they didn\’t pay the insureds anything for those wind damages, saying it was all excluded as flood damage.
Why punitive damages? Because the company\’s own version of the facts shows they failed to honor the contract.
Why can\’t you people see
What We Are Fighting For?
We Paid for Flood.
We read the policy too.
Flood paid 100%
Denied $0 blaming wind
The Problem is…
The Insurance Industry Denied All Wind Damage.
They Lied & Tried to use their power to stop the investigation.
Katrina winds 200 MPS
blew the covers off the industry…
They Lied, They Cheated & now they must pay.
This is not about water!!!!!
FLOOD was paid.
State Farm blamed the water before anyone could get to see their damaged home.
Are you too stupid to see what they have done to their own people?
A category 5 : blew the roof off of the superdome a, blew high rise windows out of hotels & casinos from LA to MS?
How can you anyone say Katrina did not do wind damage?
Helen Keller could see the damage.
If this ruling stands, which it should not, homeowners rates will increase to compensate or availability will suffer. People who live in flood zones without buying flood insurance should not have the power to impact other homeowners this way. At a minimum, the industry needs to make sure the water damage exclusion is strong enough for the next go around. Judges like this and sympathetic juries don\’t care about the policy contract, only that money is paid out.
This makes absolute sense! The policy coverage and circumstances surrounding an ambiguous loss should always favor the policyholder. Apparently the two who commented before me feel otherwise. That\’s the problem with today\’s group of independent and company adjusters, they think a 1st-party policy is a 3rd-party coverage and all policyholders are crooks trying to cheat the Insurance Company. God Bless America!
How about some photos of the flooded house (or flooded lot). Is the insurance Journal taking news lessons from the LA Times?
Nobody can tell from the story if the home was flooded, storm surged or blown away-NO FACTS, the judge was correct is that was the insurance companies case.
He said She said is always in favor of the policy holder.
I can\’t believe the insurance companies didn\’t present photographic evidence of flood or storm surge. Duh!
Wow, How can anyone be surprised at this. We all knew with our current system that the lawyers would eventually win. Hey look on the bright side. As agents we will all make a whole lot more money as the property rate go through the roof. Lawyers are an agents best friend.
Without them insurance premium would be so cheap we could not make a good living.
The more information, the better I understand this matter. As I understand this case and the \”facts\”, the homeowners believe there house was completed destroyed by wind, prior to storm surge…and appairently there is limited forensic information to the contrary. In the context that State Farm should have paid for wind damage, the ruling appears to be on point. My biggest concern is whether State Farm took advantage of the fact that no one could really know whether wind did some damage to the structure or totalled the structure, and the last evidence was loss by water, thus excluded. They did not give benefit to the policyholder..
With insurance companies relying upon a jury of premium paying people to know legal wordage is, what do you expect. Why did State Farm NOT present scientific FACT as to what was the proximate cause of loss. Perhaps they forgot that proving this point is what really will determine what gets paid and what doesn\’t.
I can not understand the punative damage side of a property claim. That really pissed me. Insurance is to make you whole after a loss, neither gaining not lossing. Opps, I guess no one remembered that one, especially the judge. What a great leegal system.
We should have known from your sig. Your comments confirm the view that Public Adjusters are not interested in enforcing or administering a legal insurance contract but are only interested in advocating a claimants position in order to run up a claim. Could it be that you are paid based on the value of a claim$$$
Based upon this logic, fires caused by an intentional act, war or a nuclear explosion should be covered. The decision was idiotic and contains no logic.The suicide or military act exclusion in life insurance should not have any effect on our soldiers in Iraq. Health insurance policies can not exclude losses caused by utilization of drugs or narcotics. Auto insurance can not exclude road rage as an intentional loss. After all, a collision caused the damage.
You are way off on this one. We are lamenting this ruling because what\’s the use of exclusions in a polcy when they are not enforced or when they are disregarded (as in this case). I say include flood coverage on these policies and then exorbitantly increase their premium.
GG is right, the concept of insurance (hello all you CPCU\’s out there) is and always was to make you whole, not provide you with a gain.
Public Adjuster…You are right that ambiguities should be determined in the favor of the insured as an HO form is a contract of adhesion. However, you fail to realize the contract was NOT ambigious…it CLEARLY excludes FLOOD.
If the courts continue to confuse the coverages, then property rates will have to contemplate \”all risks\” and the average Joe or Jane could not afford to live in FL or southern LA AND have insurance.
Good for that judge and the jury. State Farm oppresses both first and third party claimants on a routine basis. More to come on this–those two adjuster sisters and the misconduct regarding engineering reports as seen on 60 Minutes–unless State Farm acts to end trials and cover up their evil ways (again).
Mutual companies–self-perpetuating hierarchies accountable to no one except the occasional federal judge and fairness-minded jury. Isn\’t the current head of State Farm the son of the former head? What a coincidence. Must have superb management genes.
Must be one of them lib\’rul activist judges, eh? Thank goodness.
GG you show your ignorance and make my point. We can all assume what may have happened but what actual facts were presented by SF to the Jury. I can\’t tell you how many claims I\’ve been involved in that were denied before I became involved by poorly trained and overworked claims personnel. My involvement however overturned the denial.
If you were an insurer, how long would you continue to write coverage on structures in this kind of legal atmosphere. 2008 will be the year of the disappearing coverage in Mississippi.
What we need is a federal catastrophe policy which includes flood, wind and quake. Take the wind and flood totally out of the HO policy and then it would not matter. In a hurricane it is likely you are going to have damage from both the wind and the water. Then if the insured did not purchase this policy it would be too bad so sad. Of course, the attorneys would lobby against this because they would not have any law suits to bring forth.
Hey inside looking out, I agree the contract is clear however the facts and circumstances surrounding this loss as presented to the Jury were not! Unless you had a camera rolling when this occurred you can only guess and what peril occurred first.
This ruling is good for the policyholder but very bad for the industry. The problem is that the mass catastrophy situation needs to be handled differently as a state/country not put all the burden on neither the policy holder through astronomical rates nor on the insurance company with billions in losses. Soon no one in their right mind will want to (be able to afford) offer insurance in coastal areas. It is also not fair for those not living in coastal flood areas to absorb the costs of the rich people living near the coast. Politicians need to do their homework and resolve this critical issue for everybody.
Not all people living in coastal communities are rich. The issue is not just Mississippi – but all coastal areas now need to be concerned. Those in the states with coastal areas need to keep in mind the issue of carriers leaving the entire state due to legal issues. The unavailability of insurance will be an issue shared by more than \’coastal\’ residents. Keep in mind, too, that other disasters happen in other states. We need to remember that we are one county and need to help people – but we do need to do this with punitive awards like this as all will suffer. I agree – a national program with Flood, wind, quake, terrorism is needed. Tax $$ would be saved if we find a more proactive approach rather than responding afterward. Some have made a lot of money due to the misfortune of so many others. We need to come together as a county.
In my opinion homeowner insurance rates have always been too low everywhere in the country. Your typical car policy is about one tenth the value of the fully covered auto with various factors making it more or less. Yet on a $500,000 home in California you can get a good homeowner policy for $450-$700. In my opinion the average rate for a property such as this should be $4,700-$7,000. Which is still only about 1%? This way everything is covered and people too dumb to understand simple contract language won\’t be able to afford the insurance in the first place.
Rich,
I agree with you. I didn\’t mean to say that all people near the coast are rich. My point is that there has to be a program that uses common sense from all sides (insurance companies and insured). We all know that insurance companies have to make a profit to stay in business but people can\’t continue to ever higher premiums. Where is the balance (common sense)? Perhaps a system that caps the losses and claims or a combined system of private and government insurance needs to be in place. What this is all coming to is the realization the due to climate change or whatever some areas are seeing drastic weather causing much damage. One will have to ask if it is worth living in these areas anymore and if you chose to do so then you may have to realize that there won\’t be insurance to cover your dwelling should a major catastrophe come your way. We all know that there is a limited amount of money and the needs could quickly become unlimited in a major disaster. No company nor any government can cope with that or be expected to pay everybody what they lost. This is a mindset shift that we need to make. We have been spoiled for the last 4 decades but mother nature is changing the rules on us.
come on! The punitive damages were not the fault of the flood surge or the wind. The punitive damages were because the company State Farm in this case did not do its work properly. the cause of loss was aparently determined to be other than flood by the court or the exclusion would be valid.
The companies must be proactive in settling claims and documenting the denials or they will continue to get hammered
The judge\’s ruling in this case hangs on his misunderstanding of the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. This clause is not intended to, nor is it use to deny coverage for a wind damaged roof when one inch of water floods the home. The wind damaged roof is covered, the flooded carpet is not. The Judge’s opinion is that the anti-concurrent causation clause is used to exclude coverage for the wind damaged roof, also. He is wrong.
When you have a widow broken by flying debris (wind damage) but the storm surge rolls in and floods the house to the roofline, there is no longer coverage for the broken window. Why? Because when I get to the house after the storm has passed and it is clearly evident that storm surge flooded the house to the roofline, there is no possible way to determine what happened to that window. I don’t care if the insured was standing in the front yard and video taped the whole hurricane, even the tree limb breaking the window, when the surge rolls in, it ain’t covered.
To avoid the “he said it was wind, she said it was water” and all the litigation that always went along with it, policies were revised to include anti-concurrent causation clauses. It does not matter if a tornado or gale force winds blew the Broussard’s house down, when the storm surge washed it all into a pile in the back yard, it was no longer a covered loss.
You think you have it tough now, just wait until you can’t get insurance, or a home loan! Good-bye Mississippi!
Politicians need to keep their dirty little hands out of the insurance business. They created the NFIP and look at how well that works. Homeowner\’s policy STILL paying for flood damage!
Health insurance is another mess politicians gave us. What? You didn\’t know that the high price of health insurance is due to the mandates state governments put on health insurers!
\”You want to sell health insurance in this state? Well, you have to cover routine doctor visits, and well care, etc. No, you can\’t offer a simple major medical policy. We don\’t think that would be fair.\”
I see a lot of good points here, and they could be argued all day. As a non high risk homeowner I just have one point. Far to often developers build on land that should never EVER be built on. They develop, and buyers buy, knowing the risk, for one reason. They feel the insurance company, legal system, and or government will bail them out when they get hurt on the deal. Once again this court proved them right. The point I would like to make is I no longer want to pay for these peoples lack of ability to live in the real world. If you build a house on the side of a cliff in Calif it could easily slide down. I say to you insurance people don\’t raise the rates avoid the risk. This case proves you can\’t exclude it 100%. Don\’t let the perfume of the premium cloud the stench of the risk. We will all be better off.
This argument is a big contradiction. On one hand some of you don\’t want the government involved (i.e. politicians) and want the free market to balance allowing businesses to make the most profit, but at the same time you want the government and all other citizens to bail everybody out (companies and insured) when a catastrophe occurs. Make up your mind because we can\’t have it both ways! This is the same old dilemma of taxes and roads. You want good roads to drive your expensive SUV but don\’t want to pay taxes to let the gov build the roads. Is is simply math people! No free lunch!
The main point in all of this, it\’s yet another glaring example of the US Judicial system out of control. Contracts of all types, not just insurance, are NOT being upheld by the courts in this country, with emotions and sympathy for the victims being the only factors involved. Likewise, goes the court of public opinion.
I\’m curious how SF settled claims where there was flood ins. The anti-current causation clause does not exclude wind damage because there is also water damage according to a technical advisory issued by the LA agents assoc. TA252 05/22/06
In a hurricane, unless there is proof to the contrary, it\’s hard to believe that there wasn\’t some wind damage which would have been covered by the homeowners policy.
Seems like SF should have paid some portion and it\’s my bet that they do pay a percentage when there is flood ins in place.
If each and every agent selling a homeowners policy (including wind) required them to purchase a flood policy as well there would not be any question of wind vs water. Non high risk areas are eligible for Preferred policies and they are cheap!
Why buy flood insurance ?
When will all the folks trying to do the right thing by purchasing Flood Insurance get their rebate, evidently in this judges eyes they don\’t need flood insurance as long as they have a HO policy
The liberal view of the judicial system. To pay the claim is bad enough, but punitive damages, please. This is a small part of the larger problem in the entire judicial system. We just seem to get ticked the most.
Most exclusions sooner or later get over turned in a court case. Why not include flood coverage on all policies, wind driven or not, with a cap (say 50k), charge the premium for it and make use of the NFIP as an excess insurer. No exclusion, no argument. Just need to document that excess was offered and declined.
The case appeared to represent a legitimate dispute as to facts; therefore I would question the basis for a punitive damage jury instruction.
The real issue is the greed of insurers aggressively marketing homeowners policies in high hurricane risk areas, then texting the contracts with complex language and a lot of cute exclusions. Argument can certainly be made that the policies failed to meet the reasonable expectation test for the purchasers.
The obvious solution for any insurer still dumb enough to remain in the coastal states is to write an \”all risk\” policy and include adequate load for hurricane, flood, storm surge or whatever. Approprite deductibles could provide further mechanism to properly price the risk.
Admittedly, the required premium might be say 10% of the maximum probable loss, but in this manner let the market place decide if private insurance is the appropriate mechanism tohandle hurricane coastal risk.
Perhaps the more simplistic answer is for insurers to abandon their market share greed and follow Allstate\’s lead and not write business within 50 or 100 miles of the coast. Sure, this might create some inconvenience for those who prefer time payments, mortgages and mortgage clause
style of purchasing houses, but again let market forces dictate the solution
Insurers knew about the features of the US judicial system well. They chose to work out smart policy wordings and sold it big to get market shares, premium etc. Now they are complaining about the judgement, legal fees and negative publicity.
We should go back to basic
1. to sue the lawyers who gave wrong advice on wordings and gave us the false hope of winning the arguement on wind vs water etc.
2. grow our business in a fair way. Either don\’t give the wind/water cover on coastal areas or assess it properly, charge for it and manage it. Don\’t rely too much on wordings and your lawyers.
3. let the market force to sell your good products. Don\’t force the market to buy your bad products
* Auto Accidents
* Medical Malpractice
* Workers\’ Compensation
* D.W.I. & Traffic Defense
* Employer/Employee Relationships
* Sexual Harassment & Other Discriminatory Practices
* Faulty Products
* Criminal Law
1. Attorney at large, State Farm Insurance Carrier dirty hands, Dennis Allen Lempert. Hang on to every traffic ticket, offense of any sortive, will come back in another form.
2. Attorney at State Farm Insurance / Foundation ISP RX disposal, Daniel G. Herns. No wonder this POS lives in a gated community.
Note: Also Relates to Bush and Medicare Drug Monopoly.
I sat thru the trial and I know the SF policy language. The water damage exclusion, including the anticoncurrent cause clause, applies only to such loss as would not have occurred in the absence of water. Since SF had the burden to prove how much loss was caused by water only UNDER THE POLICY IT WROTE the judge was 100% correct to say SF could not win because it\’s expert testified that it was scientifically impossible to determine how much damage was caused by wind but that SOME damage was probably caused by wind.
\”The facts matter\” brings home the point.
State Farm\’s own expert indicated that it was impossible to seperate wind from flood damage when the remains of a structure rests in a rubble pile.
Does State Farm disagree? What training instructions did they provide their claim adjusters to make this determination? What marketing information did their agents convey when selling the policies?
I reiterate that if State Farm\’s insatiable greed of maintaining market share compels them to continue writing
homeowners policies in hurricane prone areas, then hopefully, somewhere scattered among their executive towers in Bloomington, they can find an actuary who can crunch the numbers and prepare an adequate premium rate for honest, straight forward, \”all risk\” protection for the coastal risks.
Katrina was no ones fault, but
State Farm had a plan.
Katrina took everything in her sight,
Red, Yellow Black & White,
both Democrat & Republicans alike.
I thought I was dreaming…
but this was real.
and Thought I was covered,
I had State Farm for years.
When they said denied,
I thought I could no recover.
It hurt even more,to see my children cry.
State Farm refused to pay us
and they wanted to know why.
No toys for them this Christmas.
but a gift they got indeed,
Called one of life\’s lessons
a gift they will never forget.
State Farm hurt their future…
because they refused to pay a dime.
Ultime Betrayal…and at the worst time.
Our Fellow Americans, you see,
They drove in buses, sending aide,
Threw us money in every way.
This is called the USA.
Stranges came to our aid
but S/F only stayed away.
Thank you America for what you have done.
No one owed us but State Farm that we paid.
but it was the people that came to our aid.
They when the Adjuster said Denied…
and we still had to pay them, another surprise.
They refused us the benefits for Loss of Use.
Said our homes were uninhabitable with the same water excuse.
In the end you will find,
exactly what they have done to me & why.
I never though we could ever win,
but Bless you Scruggs…you did it again.
Appeal this they can… but no one you see,
can\’t change the truth, it\’s now history.
1. Develop a clearly-written exclusion that says what adjusters have been claiming the existing one said — if damage is caused by a combination of a covered peril and an excluded peril, all damage is excluded, including that from the covered peril.
2. Price existing policies to cover losses that are covered under the existing language, including the expense of investigating to determine what is covered wind damage and what is excluded flood damage, and to cover losses where it cannot be determined what was caused by wind and what was caused by flood.
3. Exclude all wind, and see if you can get the policy approved.
4. Write an all-perils policy and see if anyone is willing/able to pay for it.
Knowing they had the burden of proof under the exclusion THEY WROTE to prove what damage would have occurred in the absence of water, what SF did, after engineering reports came back saying wind contributed, was cancel engineering reports and issue an edict to deny all slab claims. That\’s thousands of people without homes. Got it? $2.5 million is a drop in the bucket to them. It will take more, much more, to make sure they don\’t do it again and again and again..
Biography for State Farm Insurance (Agents)and for those other Highlight performances with Tenet Healthcare Hospital Chain.
For those you continue to screw,
Hands down, a posthumous \”omit supportive\” evidence. Must be to busy working on your insurance Emmy for your all-sport, side-splitting work as neighborhood snoops!
If Wind did all the damage and not the water. Tell me this. How come some of the houses still standing in the Ninth ward still have all the shingles on the roof. I was this with my own eyes. There were acc\\tually houses that did not have one shingle missing. But the wind did all the damage right!!
They could not gather evidence!
No evidence is available because you can\’t have a hurricane without wind.
Check the Dictionary for Hurricane.
Never has there been a hurricane without wind.
Duh… They have gotten over on us for so long, It\’s time they were brought to Justice.
It\’s written with Deductions & Exclusions to prevent the Homeowner from collecting.
Add Your Annual Premium
Add The Policy Deductible
Add The Hurricane Deductible-15% Ins. Amt
Loop: THEY WILL ONLY PAY
ABOVE THE WATER LINE….
Loop: Minus Depreciation
Loop: No Rain, No Wind Driven Water or Spray, No Hail, No waves, and now they say No Wind.
LOOP HOLES AND EXCLUSIONS
There is No Way In this Life that I will pay them for Hurricane Insurance.
If they did this for a Category 5.
The worst disaster in the USA
They will not pay for anything less.
BUY HURRICANE INSURANCE
BUT THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR WIND OR WATER
Bottom Line:
They want you to pay High Rates
with a Guarantee of a Rate Increase.
but they will not provide Financial
Protection for your home.
Did Any Agent walk their Katrina Client thru and help them file claims that were due. Not that I know.
When I called for LOSS OF USE Benefits.
State Farm Denied that too.
They said, Your home is uninhabitalbe because of WATER.
Some State Farm Agents Lied: They told their clients they did not have LOSS OF USE BENEFITS…EVERY POLICY HAS IT.
THEY DID NOT TELL YOU, OR OFFER IT,
THEY DID NOT PAY IF YOU ASKED FOR IT.
Before we awoke from Katrina.
before anyone could get to their home.
State Farm already started Shouting…
It\’s All Water, All Water, The Water!
First Thing that my Agent said,
If your home is gone,,,It\’s All Water!!!
I said No, It\’s still here but busted up into 3 pieces.
My Dock & Pier did not have a scratch…
Know why: It was under water.
The wind could not destroy it.
A surge would have sucked it away.
They Denied to pay $1.00
then & Left me standing outside.
How can/could they do that?
They do this every time.
It\’s the Reason for Water Exclusions
They sit back like Spiders…
and wait for MR.Water.
Splash…Off to the Bank they go.
Are not punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer? It would be interesting to know how the insurer was blatantly committing a wrong against the plaintiff.
Also, even if the insurer failed to prove how much of the house was damaged by wind, I find it hard to believe that anyone visiting the Gulf Coast could agree that \”the wind\” destroyed a home.
Anyway, it is early and the final outcome is a ways away.
Also, if the verdict stands, the insurers will most likely pull out of all coastal areas in the country. The premium they would have to charge the avg American would be too high for to pay. We would then have to get state-sponsored insureance. If you want to know how good that is, check out Florida\’s Citizen\’s insurance.
Let us assume there is a $200,000 house with $125,000 in personal items and the house is gone when the customer returns home. We know there were 20+ foot high waves and 100+ mph winds. If the insurance company doesn\’t pay for flood because its not covered, how should they have handled the customer\’s claim? They can prove the extent of flood damage. They can probably prove that the house was completely destroyed by flood water. They can\’t however determine the extent of wind damage.
Also, I wonder if there are any houses still standing that were completely destroyed by wind. I have seen the area from New Orleans to Gulfport.
More importantly, the state insurance departments approved concurrent cause language written in their states and of course the policy can\’t conflict with state law. The purpose is probably to close any loopholes. Such as if someone burns down their house for profit (not covered) and then tries to claim they want to be paid for a TV which a looter stole(covered) before the firemen arrived. Or the roof framing is old and rotted and collapses under a heavy snow. But the customer wants to be paid for the good lumber that was there.
I don\’t know your situation but if you were in the affected area, I\’m sorry for your loss.
Having said that, because this is America, you get what you pay for. Any American who can walk, see, or picnic at an ocean, lake, river, or gulf should have flood insurance with the lesser of the max govt limits or what they actually have.
For those living from Florida to Texas, every June 1st brings hope that a hurricane doesn\’t hit them. Hope should have been backed with a flood policy.
That\’s one of the problems with what happened. People want to blame some person or company for anything.
why do you keep going back and going back to them. could it be your fault to see if the lion would bite after more than 1 time. why not get a agent and company who can choose between companies rather than someone who will jump when the co says jump.
This ruling specifically upholds concurrent causation language: the damage from the excluded loss is not covered, even though it occurred in combination with a covered loss from wind. The covered loss, however, is still covered.
The company set itself a trap by first finding there was a covered wind loss, then refusing to pay anything for wind damage.
If the company had made some reasonable estimate of the wind damage, say $10,000 for roof and window damage, then it probably would have at least avoided punitive damages and might have avoided paying the full value of the home.
The judge only awarded the full value of the home because the insurance company insisted there was no way to tell how much of the loss was covered and how much was excluded. In which case, it\’s settled law that ambiguities in contracts of adhesion are interpreted in favor of the customer.
The blatant wrong the company did was to admit that there was wind damage, then refuse to pay anything because the damage was all caused by water.
The contract says they pay for wind damage.
The company\’s testimony and experts agree there was wind damage.
The company refused to pay anything.
Therefore, company has willfully violated its insurance contract with its customer.
It might have been different if the company had reasonable evidence the damage was all due to water. Then it would be a question of facts. But when the company\’s own experts said there was wind damage, and the contract says wind damage is covered, the company needs to pay *something* for wind damage or else it is intentionally breaching its contract with the insured.
Does anyone have the actual ruling or is the article it? Because the article doesn\’t state the insurer found wind damage. It states the customer claimed wind destroyed the home and the insurer claimed water destroyed the home.
Also, what\’s with the all or nothing ruling by the judge. I\’m curious if any expert was able to say the house was destroyed by wind. However, I\’m sure experts on both sides can state the flood damage was significant enough to destroy the home.
Regarding all the houses that were destroyed (blown or washed away for arguments sake), if the company paid for everyone\’s roof, windows, and nonmasonry siding, would you have sided with the carrier, found them not guilty and awarded no damages?
The good thing about mutual companies is they are not answerable to investors. Also, if you look around your home, I\’m sure every room in your home (not to mention all the family-owned, farm produced items in your fridge) contains items from companies that appreciated family.
Also, check out the salaries of StateFarm execs. No Enron or NASDAQ nonsense there.
Well stated. Your statement hits this point right on.
This is what many are missing. There is a contract in place and you can\’t have adjusters \”guessing\” what happened. The claim can only be paid or denied on reasonable facts.
Round 1 is over. I\’m sure the attorneys for these folks have already let them know this will be moving to a more unbiased court.
IJ\’s article was pretty light on details. I\’m sure more will come out later.
Quoting from the New York Times:
[Begin Quote]
After Hurricane Katrina, State Farm and other insurers balked at paying claims, arguing that much of the damage to houses was caused by flooding, which is not covered by a typical homeowner policy. Many insurers also contended that if any damage to a home had come from water, it nullified the basic coverage for wind damage.
Judge Senter agreed in a ruling that the insurers were not obligated to pay for flood damage. But he said that when both wind and water damaged or destroyed a house, it was the burden of the insurance company to prove how much of the loss was because of water and pay for any wind damage.
A clerk for Judge Senter said in a telephone interview from Gulfport that experts for State Farm acknowledged in court documents that some damage to the Broussard’s home had come from wind. But, he said, “they did not offer evidence during trial” showing how much of the damage was from water and how much from wind, as Judge Senter had required.
Ultimately, he said, the judge ruled that State Farm was liable for all the damage because the insurer had not provided enough evidence “the jury could use to segregate” the wind from the water damage.
[End Quote]
Quoting the Associated Press:
[Begin Quote]
State Farm and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not from water, and that the policies exclude damage that could have been caused by a combination of both, even if hurricane-force winds preceded a storm\’s rising water.
Senter, however, ruled that State Farm couldn\’t prove that Katrina\’s storm surge was responsible for all of the damage to the Broussards\’ home. The judge also said the testimony failed to establish how much damage was caused by wind and how much resulted from storm surge.
[End Quote]
One point both articles make in different ways — insurers claimed their concurrent causation clauses applied to damage that \”could have\” been caused by either excluded water or covered wind. But none of the concurrent causation clauses I\’ve seen actually say that — they exclude damage that *was* caused by the excluded peril. \”could have been\” and \”was\” are two very different standards of evidence.
Gulfport Visitor asks: \”if the company paid for everyone\’s roof, windows, and nonmasonry siding, would you have sided with the carrier, found them not guilty and awarded no damages?\”
Who can say?
Is there a claimant out there who has video of a tree falling through their house before the storm surge arrived? If so, that\’s clearly wind damage, not water/flood damage.
Claims need to be settled case-by-case, on the facts of each situation. If the company\’s own engineering reports show wind damage, they\’d better pay for wind damage. If they can show it\’s all flood damage for a particular home, they shouldn\’t have to pay. If they adopt a blanket policy of saying everyone in the surge zone had no covered wind damage, they should expect to be called on it.
Water slams into your house and washes it off the foundation and the pieces of the house hit a tree.. The tree did not cause the damage When there is a water line 12 feet up on a house sitting 1/2 block away from it\’s address and the roof is missing some shingles, the house was NOT destroyed by the wind that lifted the shingles. These folks were able to buy flood insurance and did not. They rolled snake eyes and now want to take back their bet!!!
Does anyone really think State Farm took this to court without having case history on their side. This is not the first hurricane to blow through Mississippi.
Rick, it\’s the first time they got caught and the first time they were held accountable.
World Book Encyclopedia:
Hurricane Katrina, the worst hurricane in USA history.
Open your dictionary to Hurricane, Flood, Storm, Surge, & Wind.
HURRICANE: A tropical cyclone with winds of 74 miles per hour or greater,
that is usually accompanied by rain, thunder, and lightning,
and that sometimes moves into temperate latitudes
FLOOD: described in the Bible as covering the earth in the time of Noah
(Michael Brown was Noah in Katrina)
WIND: a destructive force or influence
STORM: a disturbance of the atmosphere marked by wind and usually by rain, snow, hail, sleet, or thunder and lightning
: a heavy fall of rain, snow, or hail
: wind having a speed of 64 to 72 miles
(103 to 116 kilometers) per hour
: WHOLE GALE a serious disturbance of
any element of nature
: a disturbed or agitated state
: a sudden or violent commotion
: a heavy discharge of objects (as
missiles)
: a tumultuous outburst
SURGE:1 : a swelling, rolling, or sweeping forward like that of a wave or series of waves
: a large wave or billow
: a series of such swells or billows
: the resulting elevation of water level
It was right after Katrina, and we were short of allot of necessities. I was in Wal-Mart buying a large bag of Purina dog chow and was in line to check out. A woman behind me asked if I had a dog; I tried to be polite, but she continued to pry, and I was feeling a bit crabby so on impulse, I told her no, I was starting dog food diet again (brand name withheld, but one of the namebrands), although I probably shouldn\’t because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I\’d lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care unit with tubes coming out of most of my body and IV\’s in both arms. Her eyes about bugged out of her head.
I went on and on with the bogus diet story and she was totally buying it. I told her that it was an easy, inexpensive diet and that the way it works is to load your pockets or purse with nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The package said the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her.
Horrified, she asked if something in the dog food had poisoned me and was that why I ended up in the hospital.
I said no…..I\’d been sitting in the street licking my butt when a car hit me.
I think carriers should pay for non water damage, but not water damage. If you were in storm surge area and your house went under, then look to your flood coverage. I would think there should be ample evidence what caused the damage in question, but to deny all of the loss simply because there is flood damage, well, that just doesn\’t hold water. But I do like the Wal-Mart diet.
Most people don\’t understand their policy or what is insured, and it\’s doubtful this jury understood, either.
This water thingamajig reminds me of how polarized we are, we gots the pro-water flood insurers against the pro-winddamage pay me cuz I had insurance folk; it reminds of of the wal-mart vs union, Iraq war vs surrenderers, vegietariens vs carnievors, and even right vs left…even
reminds me of government; gridlock that is; you got the reds hatin\’ the blues, and the blues hatin\’ the reds; dat\’s why nuttin\’ gets done in Washington; it\’s like the big fish and the little fish; the big fish wants to eat, and the little fish wants to eat, but the big fish wants to eat the little fish, and the little fish doesn\’t want to be eat. See, that\’s like government. What we need is universal flood coverage; put a $500k cap on it, but a 15% deductible; that way you makes flood people take responsibility for some of their loss, but you can provide coverage to the really well off people like me who need extra coverage for their beach property. That, and we should tax gas 50 cents per gallon on top of the current taxes to balance the budget.
All of Us, will be riding in the back of the bus !
Red, Yellow, Black & White, Democrate & Republican
Every Homeowner & Future Homeowner in USA,
WE WILL NOT ALLOW BETRAYAL.
WE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SLAVES.
WE WILL NOT BE HELD HOSTAGE!
Most Certainly not by one of Our Own…
Betraying Americans on our own Land,
it is time for America to take a stand!
Pay for Insurance
that will not provide
financial protection
for what you will need?
OUR FOUNDATION WILL CRUMBLE.
They have taken our money & our power too!
TO The Men & Women who read
their policy and Understood it too:
I commend you if you purchased
the policy after your review,
because that makes you more stupid
than the homeowners that did not read
or understand the exclusions.
So, Please stop pointing you finger at
your fellow man.
Hear our cry and Listen to the Facts.
We do not want anything for free!
We are, the Working Americans..
THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE USA
We Paid, We Trusted,
We were denied in our time of need
and we\’re still paying insurance for
a home that is destroyed or vanished.!
The only ones that owed us…
were the Insurance Companies
that we paid to financially protect our homes.
They turned their back & denied us by name.
It was Our Own, Fellow Americans,
That came rushing to our aide.
Can\’t get more Patriotic than that!
I still say Thank You,
To The Red, White & BLue.
Then those good neighbors…
left us with our children, outside in the rain.
TO ALL SELF EMPLOYED:
How many clients would you have
if you turned your back on them
when you saw them in need?
That is not the way to treat your neighbor
and certainly not the way
a good neighbor should be.
They should have a special suit for
false advertisement.
Good Neighbors they are not.,
I call them Pirates.
What they have done was Mutiny
It\’s Piracy.
It hurt more to see the children cry.
Their toys & clothes were all destroyed.
That Christmas, we had No Santa Clause.
Toys they did not receive but
A Gift They Did Receive…..
that will forever be remembered,
called Life\’s Lessons.
They too were Victims of Katrina.
When they saw the destruction,
they felt it too,
They heard Mommy & Daddy had
one of the top 5 insurance companies
in America.
They were insured, so they will be able
to buy new toys of their choice.
.When the children found about the
denied claims, innocence was lost.
adding insult to injury.
They too asked why.
They blamed all the damage on water.
Children know that was a lie because
never will there be a hurricane
without wind and rain.
These Children are Our Children,
They are Your Future.
We will pass the torch to them.
They will never forget that
Katrina Took their toys but
State Farm killed Santa Clause.
Make No Mistake About this….
We will Have Another Katrina.
The Homeowners policy DOES NOT Provide
Financial Protection for your Home.
Will not cover Collapse, Mold, Spray,
Rain, Overflow, Structure Damage,
Wind Driven Rain, Snow, Hail, Sleet,
Cyclone, Title wave,
and now…NO WIND.
The war is not over with Katrina
& they are back to the drawing board
with how to add more exclusions.
FLASH BULLITIN: ;Jan 2007:
A State Farm Insurance Co.
executive says the company
IS NO LONGER OFFERING W I N D coverage
for new customers in Mississippi\’s six southern
most counties and is reviewing whether to
continue extending the coverage on renewals.
Because the base hurricane deductible is
restricted to 2 percent in Mississippi,
increasing the deductible was
not an option as it has been in
other states, said Robert L. Trippel.
How can we pay for Hurricane Insurance
when it will not pay for Wind, Water or Collapse?
Get Off Your Butt & On Your Feet !
Ever saw a Hurricane without Wind or Rain?
I have the two options & would love more…
1. FEMA can sell HURRICANE INSURANCE
includes any and all damage resulting
from a natural disaster.
Homeowners will have 100% protection
without one calculating exclusion.
Guaranteed to be paid by our own USA.
If America can afford,
to spend $2 Billion/Week in Iraq…
then We best be able to afford
financial protection for our home.
This is What we Should be Fighting For!
Liberty & Justice
Land of the Free!
The American People…1st
Step Up & Stand Up for One Another!
ASK YOURSELF: WHAT COULD
POSSIBLY DAMAGE YOUR HOME?
Then check your policy.
I REFUSE TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BY ANYONE!
When I was a child, My brother started
blackmailing me. I finally got so angry,
I told on myself.
He got the same punishment & I was free.
What will we be loosing if the Ins Co leaves?
What do you fear? Change?
2. BECOME SELF-INSURED
BY CITY/STATE
We will save money & have better coverage too!
The city will have so much money they
will not be able to count it.
We send the Insurance Premium in with the
Property Tax bill.
Assessors Tax Office already has Property
Descriptions
THE CITY OF WAVELAND/BAY ST. LOUIS
has vanished.
All to be re-built to the strongest code
We Will Take Care of Our Own.
Anyone can be replaced.
If we get a hit before enough money is in
escrow…then we can let FEMA step in
to help us instead of the Insurance Co.
FEMA does not want to profit from us.
They do not want to trick us or cheat us.
FEMA paid 100%, without 1 denied claim
nor did they try to put the blame on wind.
We need change & before another Katrina!!!
My Fellow Americans…
I don\’t have much longer to live on this great land.
As God is my witness,
I am speaking the Truth.
in hopes that our children, can & willlearn from
Our Mistakes..
May they become stronger & wiser.
Our own Family, is in trouble.
We need to do something while
we are still alive, to be at their side.
Perhaps it\’s Going, back to the original plan.
The way I was taught to live…
with the original 10…..
10 Commandments that is.
All Instructions for us, left from God.
How to treat Your Neighbor.
Ironic those Good Neighbors already
had their name etched in stone…..
It\’s not about religion, or politics.
It\’s about our Spirit.
The Spirit of the American People.
Bring back Honor & Pride,
then send the rest to Iraq.
State farm denied the ENTIRE claim due to storm surge – please – even the simpliest minded creature would know some damage was wind related. I am glad they got calle don it. These people\’s lives were destroyed. They should have paid something at the start. Just like Allstate claim philosophy -take their premium – pay them nothing
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. settled out of court Friday with a Mississippi policyholder whose lawsuit over Hurricane Katrina damage was scheduled to be tried next week in federal court.
State Farm settled with Richard Tejedor of Long Beach only eight days after jurors awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a different policyholder – a couple who sued the Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer for denying their claim after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.
Terms of the settlement in the Tejedor case will not be disclosed, said State Farm spokesman Fraser Engerman.
\”We are pleased that we were able to resolve this issue before it went to (trial),\” Engerman said.
Jack Denton, one of Tejedor\’s attorneys, confirmed that the case has been settled but declined further comment. Tejedor was one of hundreds of homeowners on Mississippi\’s Gulf Coast who sued their insurers for refusing to cover billions of dollars in damage from Katrina\’s storm surge.
Katrina destroyed his home, leaving nothing but a slab. A federal flood insurance policy paid him the maximum $200,000 for the home and $80,000 for its contents. Tejedor, however, said State Farm refused to pay for an additional $263,190 in damage to his home and its contents.
State Farm and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not from water, and that the policies exclude damage that could have been caused by a combination of both, even if hurricane-force winds preceded a storm\’s rising water.
State Farm invoked that policy language to deny a claim filed by Norman and Genevieve Broussard of Biloxi, whose lawsuit was tried last week in a federal court in Gulfport. U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. took part of that case out of jurors\’ hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Broussards\’ home.
Jurors awarded the Broussards an additional $2.5 million in punitive damages.
The trial for Tejedor\’s lawsuit was scheduled to start Monday. State Farm attorneys had asked for the trial to be postponed, but Senter refused.
State Farm attorneys argued in court papers that a \”barrage of publicity\” about last week\’s multimillion dollar verdict may have tainted the jury for Tejedor\’s case. Senter, however, said postponing the trial would needlessly disrupt the court\’s schedule.
gotta love the logic here; because there was storm surge, there \’had to be\’ wind damage…just had to be…sorry, you weren\’t there to assess; you are basing what \’had to be\’ on your feelings. Feelings do not belong here. Yes, if wind damage occurred, it should be paid, but please don\’t give us the insulting drivel of your \’had to be\’ feelings. Better yet, let\’s resolved this on Oprah and all hold hands and sing together. Why, if only State Farm had feelings…!
Chad, please spare us from your dribble. This is not a which came first the chicken or the egg. The wind came first, did damage and then the water surge came and did the rest. To be a \”hurricane\” the winds must be at least 74+ miles per hour so how can you possibly say they could not have wind damage? And yes, some of us do have \”feelings\” for these people and their losses. While they should have purchased flood insurance to be fully covered is their fault but they are entitled to the coverage for which they paid for, even if it was a small amount due to the wind damage.
feelings, wo wo wo feelings…wo wo wo feelings…oh, I feel so much better about myself…I just renewed my \”feelings policy\”, I am now covered for whatever I feel should be covered for loss; thanks for all the help…I now \’feel\’ better than ever…with new feelguard coverage, I don\’t have to worry, the policy is so simple, it just states \”If you feel you have been wronged, or are owed something, please report to your agent, who will report a loss and have your feelings evaluated and compensated most fairly by our feeling staff according to what they feel you are owed\” Grow up.
wow, a drop on my head, wow, I would really feel that, but it has nothing to do with all you moonbats using your \’I just know\’ expertise to look into the past and the future…you must feel real smart…gosh, I feel so bad…not.
I know how you feel. Others have felt that way before. What I have found is….
take responsibilty for protecting yourself and your stuff. Understand that once in a while something unforeseen happens and you have to deal with it. I can\’t believe those people lived there and
didnt have flood insurance. I cant believe a bank loaned them money without flood insurance. I can\’t believe that when the **** hits the fan so many people react by putting their hand out, reflexively.
the drugs only are used to kill the effects of me being dropped on my head…it\’s so painful to disagree on facts rather than feelings…I must be just evil…better go review my \’feelings policy\’ for coverage again! I\’m all about fair; life must be fair, or its all unfair!
Posted On: January 12, 2007, 1:11 pm CST
Posted By: Not Surprised
Comment:
Wow, How can anyone be surprised at this. We all knew with our current system that the lawyers would eventually win. Hey look on the bright side. As agents we will all make a whole lot more money as the property rate go through the roof. Lawyers are an agents best friend.
Without them insurance premium would be so cheap we could not make a good living.
************************************
Looks like State Farm should have had a lawyer too so their apparently all wet position on this case did not get blown away by the facts.
The problem arises when the house is destroyed by a 20 foot storm surge and the homeowner wants the carrier to pay for the entire loss under their wind coverage. When its all said and done, I think this will be overturned.
The State\’s Department of Insurance approved the policy and language. I think folks need to pay attention to the photos, videos, news reports when they show New Orleans and the Gulf cities. Many, many roofs were intact when people were being rescued from rooftops and during the helicopter rides by the state & feds.
Well stated. I could not have said it any
better.
I\’m waiting to see which one of these companies will sue first, over policy manuscripts the lawyers provided to them. Do you think the lawyers ever heard \”if it\’s not excluded, then it must be covered\”?
Also was it Market Share or greed that made the companies apparently forget that the law of large numbers does not apply to a heavy concentration of property exposures in one area.
Stupid is as stupid does.
The insurance industry may want to believe the typical anti-concurrent causation clause is clear in its meaning, but it isn\’t. And that\’s a problem.
Say the clause in use is that “We do not cover loss to any property resulting directly or indirectly from any of the following. Such a loss is excluded even if another peril or event contributed concurrently or in any sequence to cause the loss.”
This says that flood damage is excluded, even if some other peril also caused damage. What it does *not* say is that damage from the *other* peril is also excluded.
If it can be demonstrated factually that, as the homeowners in this case claimed, their home was blown off its foundation by wind, and then blown apart by wind, before the storm surge hit, then what the anti-concurrent causation clause says is that the damage from flooding is excluded.
Nowhere does it actually say that the damage from wind is excluded. And of course it\’s a contract of adhesion, so if it can be interpreted two ways, it must be interpreted in favor of the policy holder, not the company.
That\’s what the judge cited in awarding actual damages — State Farm did not demonstrate that the damage was all flood damage, and therefore excluded. If it was wind damage, it was not excluded by the anti-concurrent causation clause. Quoting the New York Times on this:
[Begin Quote]
Judge Senter agreed in a ruling that the insurers were not obligated to pay for flood damage. But he said that when both wind and water damaged or destroyed a house, it was the burden of the insurance company to prove how much of the loss was because of water and pay for any wind damage.
A clerk for Judge Senter said in a telephone interview from Gulfport that experts for State Farm acknowledged in court documents that some damage to the Broussard’s home had come from wind. But, he said, “they did not offer evidence during trial” showing how much of the damage was from water and how much from wind, as Judge Senter had required.
Ultimately, he said, the judge ruled that State Farm was liable for all the damage because the insurer had not provided enough evidence “the jury could use to segregate” the wind from the water damage.
[End Quote]
Why punitive damages?
The judge left that up to the jury, after directing a verdict on the actual damages.
The language of the contract clearly requires the insurer to pay for wind damage, and State Farm admitted in court that there was wind damage, but they didn\’t pay the insureds anything for those wind damages, saying it was all excluded as flood damage.
Why punitive damages? Because the company\’s own version of the facts shows they failed to honor the contract.
Why can\’t you people see
What We Are Fighting For?
We Paid for Flood.
We read the policy too.
Flood paid 100%
Denied $0 blaming wind
The Problem is…
The Insurance Industry Denied All Wind Damage.
They Lied & Tried to use their power to stop the investigation.
Katrina winds 200 MPS
blew the covers off the industry…
They Lied, They Cheated & now they must pay.
This is not about water!!!!!
FLOOD was paid.
State Farm blamed the water before anyone could get to see their damaged home.
Are you too stupid to see what they have done to their own people?
A category 5 : blew the roof off of the superdome a, blew high rise windows out of hotels & casinos from LA to MS?
How can you anyone say Katrina did not do wind damage?
Helen Keller could see the damage.
Lady Justice is not only blind. It seems she is deaf and stupid as well.
Because the Industry wants to collect ALL premiums for hurricanes
but CHOKE US WITH DEDUCTIBLES
THEN they do not pay for water or wind.
Now, they are… comming out to say,
they will no longer cover wind damages.
When did they cover anything?
What do we need them for?
Justice was done and we\’ve just begun to fight.
We have the truth on our side.
This is why State Farm could not provide enough evidence to prove water or wind damage.
They lied, they got caught and now they must pay and this is called the American Way!
THIS SUCKS
If this ruling stands, which it should not, homeowners rates will increase to compensate or availability will suffer. People who live in flood zones without buying flood insurance should not have the power to impact other homeowners this way. At a minimum, the industry needs to make sure the water damage exclusion is strong enough for the next go around. Judges like this and sympathetic juries don\’t care about the policy contract, only that money is paid out.
WHAT A MESS THIS HAS BECOME — I AM MORTIFIED BY THE DECISION — AND ABSOLUTLEY DISGUSTED
This makes absolute sense! The policy coverage and circumstances surrounding an ambiguous loss should always favor the policyholder. Apparently the two who commented before me feel otherwise. That\’s the problem with today\’s group of independent and company adjusters, they think a 1st-party policy is a 3rd-party coverage and all policyholders are crooks trying to cheat the Insurance Company. God Bless America!
How about some photos of the flooded house (or flooded lot). Is the insurance Journal taking news lessons from the LA Times?
Nobody can tell from the story if the home was flooded, storm surged or blown away-NO FACTS, the judge was correct is that was the insurance companies case.
He said She said is always in favor of the policy holder.
I can\’t believe the insurance companies didn\’t present photographic evidence of flood or storm surge. Duh!
They deserve to be beaten with a stupid stick!’
This is another example of the mess we call a legal system. My father-in-law use to say \”ignorance times 12 do justice not make\”.
Wow, How can anyone be surprised at this. We all knew with our current system that the lawyers would eventually win. Hey look on the bright side. As agents we will all make a whole lot more money as the property rate go through the roof. Lawyers are an agents best friend.
Without them insurance premium would be so cheap we could not make a good living.
The more information, the better I understand this matter. As I understand this case and the \”facts\”, the homeowners believe there house was completed destroyed by wind, prior to storm surge…and appairently there is limited forensic information to the contrary. In the context that State Farm should have paid for wind damage, the ruling appears to be on point. My biggest concern is whether State Farm took advantage of the fact that no one could really know whether wind did some damage to the structure or totalled the structure, and the last evidence was loss by water, thus excluded. They did not give benefit to the policyholder..
With insurance companies relying upon a jury of premium paying people to know legal wordage is, what do you expect. Why did State Farm NOT present scientific FACT as to what was the proximate cause of loss. Perhaps they forgot that proving this point is what really will determine what gets paid and what doesn\’t.
I can not understand the punative damage side of a property claim. That really pissed me. Insurance is to make you whole after a loss, neither gaining not lossing. Opps, I guess no one remembered that one, especially the judge. What a great leegal system.
We should have known from your sig. Your comments confirm the view that Public Adjusters are not interested in enforcing or administering a legal insurance contract but are only interested in advocating a claimants position in order to run up a claim. Could it be that you are paid based on the value of a claim$$$
Based upon this logic, fires caused by an intentional act, war or a nuclear explosion should be covered. The decision was idiotic and contains no logic.The suicide or military act exclusion in life insurance should not have any effect on our soldiers in Iraq. Health insurance policies can not exclude losses caused by utilization of drugs or narcotics. Auto insurance can not exclude road rage as an intentional loss. After all, a collision caused the damage.
You are way off on this one. We are lamenting this ruling because what\’s the use of exclusions in a polcy when they are not enforced or when they are disregarded (as in this case). I say include flood coverage on these policies and then exorbitantly increase their premium.
GG is right, the concept of insurance (hello all you CPCU\’s out there) is and always was to make you whole, not provide you with a gain.
Public Adjuster…You are right that ambiguities should be determined in the favor of the insured as an HO form is a contract of adhesion. However, you fail to realize the contract was NOT ambigious…it CLEARLY excludes FLOOD.
If the courts continue to confuse the coverages, then property rates will have to contemplate \”all risks\” and the average Joe or Jane could not afford to live in FL or southern LA AND have insurance.
It\’s up to you!!!
Good for that judge and the jury. State Farm oppresses both first and third party claimants on a routine basis. More to come on this–those two adjuster sisters and the misconduct regarding engineering reports as seen on 60 Minutes–unless State Farm acts to end trials and cover up their evil ways (again).
Mutual companies–self-perpetuating hierarchies accountable to no one except the occasional federal judge and fairness-minded jury. Isn\’t the current head of State Farm the son of the former head? What a coincidence. Must have superb management genes.
Must be one of them lib\’rul activist judges, eh? Thank goodness.
GG you show your ignorance and make my point. We can all assume what may have happened but what actual facts were presented by SF to the Jury. I can\’t tell you how many claims I\’ve been involved in that were denied before I became involved by poorly trained and overworked claims personnel. My involvement however overturned the denial.
If you were an insurer, how long would you continue to write coverage on structures in this kind of legal atmosphere. 2008 will be the year of the disappearing coverage in Mississippi.
What we need is a federal catastrophe policy which includes flood, wind and quake. Take the wind and flood totally out of the HO policy and then it would not matter. In a hurricane it is likely you are going to have damage from both the wind and the water. Then if the insured did not purchase this policy it would be too bad so sad. Of course, the attorneys would lobby against this because they would not have any law suits to bring forth.
The punitive damage award is very disappointing.
Hey inside looking out, I agree the contract is clear however the facts and circumstances surrounding this loss as presented to the Jury were not! Unless you had a camera rolling when this occurred you can only guess and what peril occurred first.
This ruling is good for the policyholder but very bad for the industry. The problem is that the mass catastrophy situation needs to be handled differently as a state/country not put all the burden on neither the policy holder through astronomical rates nor on the insurance company with billions in losses. Soon no one in their right mind will want to (be able to afford) offer insurance in coastal areas. It is also not fair for those not living in coastal flood areas to absorb the costs of the rich people living near the coast. Politicians need to do their homework and resolve this critical issue for everybody.
Not all people living in coastal communities are rich. The issue is not just Mississippi – but all coastal areas now need to be concerned. Those in the states with coastal areas need to keep in mind the issue of carriers leaving the entire state due to legal issues. The unavailability of insurance will be an issue shared by more than \’coastal\’ residents. Keep in mind, too, that other disasters happen in other states. We need to remember that we are one county and need to help people – but we do need to do this with punitive awards like this as all will suffer. I agree – a national program with Flood, wind, quake, terrorism is needed. Tax $$ would be saved if we find a more proactive approach rather than responding afterward. Some have made a lot of money due to the misfortune of so many others. We need to come together as a county.
Before anyone jumps – we DO NOT need to do this with Punitive Damage Awards. What a type.
In my opinion homeowner insurance rates have always been too low everywhere in the country. Your typical car policy is about one tenth the value of the fully covered auto with various factors making it more or less. Yet on a $500,000 home in California you can get a good homeowner policy for $450-$700. In my opinion the average rate for a property such as this should be $4,700-$7,000. Which is still only about 1%? This way everything is covered and people too dumb to understand simple contract language won\’t be able to afford the insurance in the first place.
Rich,
I agree with you. I didn\’t mean to say that all people near the coast are rich. My point is that there has to be a program that uses common sense from all sides (insurance companies and insured). We all know that insurance companies have to make a profit to stay in business but people can\’t continue to ever higher premiums. Where is the balance (common sense)? Perhaps a system that caps the losses and claims or a combined system of private and government insurance needs to be in place. What this is all coming to is the realization the due to climate change or whatever some areas are seeing drastic weather causing much damage. One will have to ask if it is worth living in these areas anymore and if you chose to do so then you may have to realize that there won\’t be insurance to cover your dwelling should a major catastrophe come your way. We all know that there is a limited amount of money and the needs could quickly become unlimited in a major disaster. No company nor any government can cope with that or be expected to pay everybody what they lost. This is a mindset shift that we need to make. We have been spoiled for the last 4 decades but mother nature is changing the rules on us.
come on! The punitive damages were not the fault of the flood surge or the wind. The punitive damages were because the company State Farm in this case did not do its work properly. the cause of loss was aparently determined to be other than flood by the court or the exclusion would be valid.
The companies must be proactive in settling claims and documenting the denials or they will continue to get hammered
The judge\’s ruling in this case hangs on his misunderstanding of the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. This clause is not intended to, nor is it use to deny coverage for a wind damaged roof when one inch of water floods the home. The wind damaged roof is covered, the flooded carpet is not. The Judge’s opinion is that the anti-concurrent causation clause is used to exclude coverage for the wind damaged roof, also. He is wrong.
When you have a widow broken by flying debris (wind damage) but the storm surge rolls in and floods the house to the roofline, there is no longer coverage for the broken window. Why? Because when I get to the house after the storm has passed and it is clearly evident that storm surge flooded the house to the roofline, there is no possible way to determine what happened to that window. I don’t care if the insured was standing in the front yard and video taped the whole hurricane, even the tree limb breaking the window, when the surge rolls in, it ain’t covered.
To avoid the “he said it was wind, she said it was water” and all the litigation that always went along with it, policies were revised to include anti-concurrent causation clauses. It does not matter if a tornado or gale force winds blew the Broussard’s house down, when the storm surge washed it all into a pile in the back yard, it was no longer a covered loss.
You think you have it tough now, just wait until you can’t get insurance, or a home loan! Good-bye Mississippi!
Marty,
Politicians need to keep their dirty little hands out of the insurance business. They created the NFIP and look at how well that works. Homeowner\’s policy STILL paying for flood damage!
Health insurance is another mess politicians gave us. What? You didn\’t know that the high price of health insurance is due to the mandates state governments put on health insurers!
\”You want to sell health insurance in this state? Well, you have to cover routine doctor visits, and well care, etc. No, you can\’t offer a simple major medical policy. We don\’t think that would be fair.\”
What a crock! Politicians fix something. HA!
I see a lot of good points here, and they could be argued all day. As a non high risk homeowner I just have one point. Far to often developers build on land that should never EVER be built on. They develop, and buyers buy, knowing the risk, for one reason. They feel the insurance company, legal system, and or government will bail them out when they get hurt on the deal. Once again this court proved them right. The point I would like to make is I no longer want to pay for these peoples lack of ability to live in the real world. If you build a house on the side of a cliff in Calif it could easily slide down. I say to you insurance people don\’t raise the rates avoid the risk. This case proves you can\’t exclude it 100%. Don\’t let the perfume of the premium cloud the stench of the risk. We will all be better off.
This argument is a big contradiction. On one hand some of you don\’t want the government involved (i.e. politicians) and want the free market to balance allowing businesses to make the most profit, but at the same time you want the government and all other citizens to bail everybody out (companies and insured) when a catastrophe occurs. Make up your mind because we can\’t have it both ways! This is the same old dilemma of taxes and roads. You want good roads to drive your expensive SUV but don\’t want to pay taxes to let the gov build the roads. Is is simply math people! No free lunch!
The main point in all of this, it\’s yet another glaring example of the US Judicial system out of control. Contracts of all types, not just insurance, are NOT being upheld by the courts in this country, with emotions and sympathy for the victims being the only factors involved. Likewise, goes the court of public opinion.
I\’m curious how SF settled claims where there was flood ins. The anti-current causation clause does not exclude wind damage because there is also water damage according to a technical advisory issued by the LA agents assoc. TA252 05/22/06
In a hurricane, unless there is proof to the contrary, it\’s hard to believe that there wasn\’t some wind damage which would have been covered by the homeowners policy.
Seems like SF should have paid some portion and it\’s my bet that they do pay a percentage when there is flood ins in place.
If each and every agent selling a homeowners policy (including wind) required them to purchase a flood policy as well there would not be any question of wind vs water. Non high risk areas are eligible for Preferred policies and they are cheap!
Why buy flood insurance ?
When will all the folks trying to do the right thing by purchasing Flood Insurance get their rebate, evidently in this judges eyes they don\’t need flood insurance as long as they have a HO policy
The liberal view of the judicial system. To pay the claim is bad enough, but punitive damages, please. This is a small part of the larger problem in the entire judicial system. We just seem to get ticked the most.
Most exclusions sooner or later get over turned in a court case. Why not include flood coverage on all policies, wind driven or not, with a cap (say 50k), charge the premium for it and make use of the NFIP as an excess insurer. No exclusion, no argument. Just need to document that excess was offered and declined.
The case appeared to represent a legitimate dispute as to facts; therefore I would question the basis for a punitive damage jury instruction.
The real issue is the greed of insurers aggressively marketing homeowners policies in high hurricane risk areas, then texting the contracts with complex language and a lot of cute exclusions. Argument can certainly be made that the policies failed to meet the reasonable expectation test for the purchasers.
The obvious solution for any insurer still dumb enough to remain in the coastal states is to write an \”all risk\” policy and include adequate load for hurricane, flood, storm surge or whatever. Approprite deductibles could provide further mechanism to properly price the risk.
Admittedly, the required premium might be say 10% of the maximum probable loss, but in this manner let the market place decide if private insurance is the appropriate mechanism tohandle hurricane coastal risk.
Perhaps the more simplistic answer is for insurers to abandon their market share greed and follow Allstate\’s lead and not write business within 50 or 100 miles of the coast. Sure, this might create some inconvenience for those who prefer time payments, mortgages and mortgage clause
style of purchasing houses, but again let market forces dictate the solution
Insurers knew about the features of the US judicial system well. They chose to work out smart policy wordings and sold it big to get market shares, premium etc. Now they are complaining about the judgement, legal fees and negative publicity.
We should go back to basic
1. to sue the lawyers who gave wrong advice on wordings and gave us the false hope of winning the arguement on wind vs water etc.
2. grow our business in a fair way. Either don\’t give the wind/water cover on coastal areas or assess it properly, charge for it and manage it. Don\’t rely too much on wordings and your lawyers.
3. let the market force to sell your good products. Don\’t force the market to buy your bad products
Height 5\’6\” your weight.
Established in 1966
Scales of Justice
* Auto Accidents
* Medical Malpractice
* Workers\’ Compensation
* D.W.I. & Traffic Defense
* Employer/Employee Relationships
* Sexual Harassment & Other Discriminatory Practices
* Faulty Products
* Criminal Law
1. Attorney at large, State Farm Insurance Carrier dirty hands, Dennis Allen Lempert. Hang on to every traffic ticket, offense of any sortive, will come back in another form.
2. Attorney at State Farm Insurance / Foundation ISP RX disposal, Daniel G. Herns. No wonder this POS lives in a gated community.
Note: Also Relates to Bush and Medicare Drug Monopoly.
I sat thru the trial and I know the SF policy language. The water damage exclusion, including the anticoncurrent cause clause, applies only to such loss as would not have occurred in the absence of water. Since SF had the burden to prove how much loss was caused by water only UNDER THE POLICY IT WROTE the judge was 100% correct to say SF could not win because it\’s expert testified that it was scientifically impossible to determine how much damage was caused by wind but that SOME damage was probably caused by wind.
\”The facts matter\” brings home the point.
State Farm\’s own expert indicated that it was impossible to seperate wind from flood damage when the remains of a structure rests in a rubble pile.
Does State Farm disagree? What training instructions did they provide their claim adjusters to make this determination? What marketing information did their agents convey when selling the policies?
I reiterate that if State Farm\’s insatiable greed of maintaining market share compels them to continue writing
homeowners policies in hurricane prone areas, then hopefully, somewhere scattered among their executive towers in Bloomington, they can find an actuary who can crunch the numbers and prepare an adequate premium rate for honest, straight forward, \”all risk\” protection for the coastal risks.
You will never know….
until it happens to you.
Katrina was no ones fault, but
State Farm had a plan.
Katrina took everything in her sight,
Red, Yellow Black & White,
both Democrat & Republicans alike.
I thought I was dreaming…
but this was real.
and Thought I was covered,
I had State Farm for years.
When they said denied,
I thought I could no recover.
It hurt even more,to see my children cry.
State Farm refused to pay us
and they wanted to know why.
No toys for them this Christmas.
but a gift they got indeed,
Called one of life\’s lessons
a gift they will never forget.
State Farm hurt their future…
because they refused to pay a dime.
Ultime Betrayal…and at the worst time.
Our Fellow Americans, you see,
They drove in buses, sending aide,
Threw us money in every way.
This is called the USA.
Stranges came to our aid
but S/F only stayed away.
Thank you America for what you have done.
No one owed us but State Farm that we paid.
but it was the people that came to our aid.
They when the Adjuster said Denied…
and we still had to pay them, another surprise.
They refused us the benefits for Loss of Use.
Said our homes were uninhabitable with the same water excuse.
In the end you will find,
exactly what they have done to me & why.
I never though we could ever win,
but Bless you Scruggs…you did it again.
Appeal this they can… but no one you see,
can\’t change the truth, it\’s now history.
God has Bless America…
Land that I love!
WOW, NOW I AGREE WITH THE JURY.
The industry needs to either:
1. Develop a clearly-written exclusion that says what adjusters have been claiming the existing one said — if damage is caused by a combination of a covered peril and an excluded peril, all damage is excluded, including that from the covered peril.
2. Price existing policies to cover losses that are covered under the existing language, including the expense of investigating to determine what is covered wind damage and what is excluded flood damage, and to cover losses where it cannot be determined what was caused by wind and what was caused by flood.
3. Exclude all wind, and see if you can get the policy approved.
4. Write an all-perils policy and see if anyone is willing/able to pay for it.
i told you guys that the courts will tell the insurance companies what the their policies will and won\’t cover. what \”is\” really means.
Knowing they had the burden of proof under the exclusion THEY WROTE to prove what damage would have occurred in the absence of water, what SF did, after engineering reports came back saying wind contributed, was cancel engineering reports and issue an edict to deny all slab claims. That\’s thousands of people without homes. Got it? $2.5 million is a drop in the bucket to them. It will take more, much more, to make sure they don\’t do it again and again and again..
P.S. Scruggs had nothing to do with this verdict. Wasn\’t his case; he only showed up when the cameras did.
1-13-1998 In Case you forgot?
Won Last 4 Games, the SF Pirates.
Biography for State Farm Insurance (Agents)and for those other Highlight performances with Tenet Healthcare Hospital Chain.
For those you continue to screw,
Hands down, a posthumous \”omit supportive\” evidence. Must be to busy working on your insurance Emmy for your all-sport, side-splitting work as neighborhood snoops!
This Judge must have not be one of your Agents.
If Wind did all the damage and not the water. Tell me this. How come some of the houses still standing in the Ninth ward still have all the shingles on the roof. I was this with my own eyes. There were acc\\tually houses that did not have one shingle missing. But the wind did all the damage right!!
No One Said It was All Wind Damage….
State Farm Said It\’ Was All Water.
They Lied, They Cheated & Left their Clients without a Dollar.
It\’s Piracy to me. Why can\’t you see.
We know it was wind and water.
Flood Insurance paid 100%
Homeowners Insurance Paid $0
This is why they got busted.
It\’s Like wrecking your car.
Then having your Insurance Deny Paying the claim.
Because there was a bump in the road.
At least be honest with yourself.
They tried to stop the investigation from the beginning.
You are funny… I did laugh…thanks.
They could not gather evidence!
No evidence is available because you can\’t have a hurricane without wind.
Check the Dictionary for Hurricane.
Never has there been a hurricane without wind.
Duh… They have gotten over on us for so long, It\’s time they were brought to Justice.
It\’s written with Deductions & Exclusions to prevent the Homeowner from collecting.
Add Your Annual Premium
Add The Policy Deductible
Add The Hurricane Deductible-15% Ins. Amt
Loop: THEY WILL ONLY PAY
ABOVE THE WATER LINE….
Loop: Minus Depreciation
Loop: No Rain, No Wind Driven Water or Spray, No Hail, No waves, and now they say No Wind.
LOOP HOLES AND EXCLUSIONS
There is No Way In this Life that I will pay them for Hurricane Insurance.
If they did this for a Category 5.
The worst disaster in the USA
They will not pay for anything less.
BUY HURRICANE INSURANCE
BUT THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR WIND OR WATER
Bottom Line:
They want you to pay High Rates
with a Guarantee of a Rate Increase.
but they will not provide Financial
Protection for your home.
Did Any Agent walk their Katrina Client thru and help them file claims that were due. Not that I know.
When I called for LOSS OF USE Benefits.
State Farm Denied that too.
They said, Your home is uninhabitalbe because of WATER.
Some State Farm Agents Lied: They told their clients they did not have LOSS OF USE BENEFITS…EVERY POLICY HAS IT.
THEY DID NOT TELL YOU, OR OFFER IT,
THEY DID NOT PAY IF YOU ASKED FOR IT.
Before we awoke from Katrina.
before anyone could get to their home.
State Farm already started Shouting…
It\’s All Water, All Water, The Water!
First Thing that my Agent said,
If your home is gone,,,It\’s All Water!!!
I said No, It\’s still here but busted up into 3 pieces.
My Dock & Pier did not have a scratch…
Know why: It was under water.
The wind could not destroy it.
A surge would have sucked it away.
They Denied to pay $1.00
then & Left me standing outside.
How can/could they do that?
They do this every time.
It\’s the Reason for Water Exclusions
They sit back like Spiders…
and wait for MR.Water.
Splash…Off to the Bank they go.
Now they want to exclude wind. LOL
Well, What They Have Done
is Worst than Bin Lauden.
Bin Lauden, did not pretend to be
American.
It is Piracy!
Are not punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer? It would be interesting to know how the insurer was blatantly committing a wrong against the plaintiff.
Also, even if the insurer failed to prove how much of the house was damaged by wind, I find it hard to believe that anyone visiting the Gulf Coast could agree that \”the wind\” destroyed a home.
Anyway, it is early and the final outcome is a ways away.
Also, if the verdict stands, the insurers will most likely pull out of all coastal areas in the country. The premium they would have to charge the avg American would be too high for to pay. We would then have to get state-sponsored insureance. If you want to know how good that is, check out Florida\’s Citizen\’s insurance.
God bless all who have suffered.
Let us assume there is a $200,000 house with $125,000 in personal items and the house is gone when the customer returns home. We know there were 20+ foot high waves and 100+ mph winds. If the insurance company doesn\’t pay for flood because its not covered, how should they have handled the customer\’s claim? They can prove the extent of flood damage. They can probably prove that the house was completely destroyed by flood water. They can\’t however determine the extent of wind damage.
Also, I wonder if there are any houses still standing that were completely destroyed by wind. I have seen the area from New Orleans to Gulfport.
More importantly, the state insurance departments approved concurrent cause language written in their states and of course the policy can\’t conflict with state law. The purpose is probably to close any loopholes. Such as if someone burns down their house for profit (not covered) and then tries to claim they want to be paid for a TV which a looter stole(covered) before the firemen arrived. Or the roof framing is old and rotted and collapses under a heavy snow. But the customer wants to be paid for the good lumber that was there.
I don\’t know your situation but if you were in the affected area, I\’m sorry for your loss.
Having said that, because this is America, you get what you pay for. Any American who can walk, see, or picnic at an ocean, lake, river, or gulf should have flood insurance with the lesser of the max govt limits or what they actually have.
For those living from Florida to Texas, every June 1st brings hope that a hurricane doesn\’t hit them. Hope should have been backed with a flood policy.
That\’s one of the problems with what happened. People want to blame some person or company for anything.
why do you keep going back and going back to them. could it be your fault to see if the lion would bite after more than 1 time. why not get a agent and company who can choose between companies rather than someone who will jump when the co says jump.
If it\’s so obvious that it wasn\’t wind damage, why did the company say there was wind damage then refuse to pay for a covered claim??
This ruling specifically upholds concurrent causation language: the damage from the excluded loss is not covered, even though it occurred in combination with a covered loss from wind. The covered loss, however, is still covered.
The company set itself a trap by first finding there was a covered wind loss, then refusing to pay anything for wind damage.
If the company had made some reasonable estimate of the wind damage, say $10,000 for roof and window damage, then it probably would have at least avoided punitive damages and might have avoided paying the full value of the home.
The judge only awarded the full value of the home because the insurance company insisted there was no way to tell how much of the loss was covered and how much was excluded. In which case, it\’s settled law that ambiguities in contracts of adhesion are interpreted in favor of the customer.
The blatant wrong the company did was to admit that there was wind damage, then refuse to pay anything because the damage was all caused by water.
The contract says they pay for wind damage.
The company\’s testimony and experts agree there was wind damage.
The company refused to pay anything.
Therefore, company has willfully violated its insurance contract with its customer.
It might have been different if the company had reasonable evidence the damage was all due to water. Then it would be a question of facts. But when the company\’s own experts said there was wind damage, and the contract says wind damage is covered, the company needs to pay *something* for wind damage or else it is intentionally breaching its contract with the insured.
Does anyone have the actual ruling or is the article it? Because the article doesn\’t state the insurer found wind damage. It states the customer claimed wind destroyed the home and the insurer claimed water destroyed the home.
Also, what\’s with the all or nothing ruling by the judge. I\’m curious if any expert was able to say the house was destroyed by wind. However, I\’m sure experts on both sides can state the flood damage was significant enough to destroy the home.
Did the company actually admit there was wind damage? Can someone show me the ruling/article where this is stated?
Bottom line, if the company could prove wind only, they would pay. But they can\’t. However, they can prove flood damage.
Regarding all the houses that were destroyed (blown or washed away for arguments sake), if the company paid for everyone\’s roof, windows, and nonmasonry siding, would you have sided with the carrier, found them not guilty and awarded no damages?
Just curious.
The good thing about mutual companies is they are not answerable to investors. Also, if you look around your home, I\’m sure every room in your home (not to mention all the family-owned, farm produced items in your fridge) contains items from companies that appreciated family.
Also, check out the salaries of StateFarm execs. No Enron or NASDAQ nonsense there.
Well stated. Your statement hits this point right on.
This is what many are missing. There is a contract in place and you can\’t have adjusters \”guessing\” what happened. The claim can only be paid or denied on reasonable facts.
Round 1 is over. I\’m sure the attorneys for these folks have already let them know this will be moving to a more unbiased court.
IJ\’s article was pretty light on details. I\’m sure more will come out later.
Quoting from the New York Times:
[Begin Quote]
After Hurricane Katrina, State Farm and other insurers balked at paying claims, arguing that much of the damage to houses was caused by flooding, which is not covered by a typical homeowner policy. Many insurers also contended that if any damage to a home had come from water, it nullified the basic coverage for wind damage.
Judge Senter agreed in a ruling that the insurers were not obligated to pay for flood damage. But he said that when both wind and water damaged or destroyed a house, it was the burden of the insurance company to prove how much of the loss was because of water and pay for any wind damage.
A clerk for Judge Senter said in a telephone interview from Gulfport that experts for State Farm acknowledged in court documents that some damage to the Broussard’s home had come from wind. But, he said, “they did not offer evidence during trial” showing how much of the damage was from water and how much from wind, as Judge Senter had required.
Ultimately, he said, the judge ruled that State Farm was liable for all the damage because the insurer had not provided enough evidence “the jury could use to segregate” the wind from the water damage.
[End Quote]
Quoting the Associated Press:
[Begin Quote]
State Farm and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not from water, and that the policies exclude damage that could have been caused by a combination of both, even if hurricane-force winds preceded a storm\’s rising water.
Senter, however, ruled that State Farm couldn\’t prove that Katrina\’s storm surge was responsible for all of the damage to the Broussards\’ home. The judge also said the testimony failed to establish how much damage was caused by wind and how much resulted from storm surge.
[End Quote]
One point both articles make in different ways — insurers claimed their concurrent causation clauses applied to damage that \”could have\” been caused by either excluded water or covered wind. But none of the concurrent causation clauses I\’ve seen actually say that — they exclude damage that *was* caused by the excluded peril. \”could have been\” and \”was\” are two very different standards of evidence.
Gulfport Visitor asks: \”if the company paid for everyone\’s roof, windows, and nonmasonry siding, would you have sided with the carrier, found them not guilty and awarded no damages?\”
Who can say?
Is there a claimant out there who has video of a tree falling through their house before the storm surge arrived? If so, that\’s clearly wind damage, not water/flood damage.
Claims need to be settled case-by-case, on the facts of each situation. If the company\’s own engineering reports show wind damage, they\’d better pay for wind damage. If they can show it\’s all flood damage for a particular home, they shouldn\’t have to pay. If they adopt a blanket policy of saying everyone in the surge zone had no covered wind damage, they should expect to be called on it.
Water slams into your house and washes it off the foundation and the pieces of the house hit a tree.. The tree did not cause the damage When there is a water line 12 feet up on a house sitting 1/2 block away from it\’s address and the roof is missing some shingles, the house was NOT destroyed by the wind that lifted the shingles. These folks were able to buy flood insurance and did not. They rolled snake eyes and now want to take back their bet!!!
Kay,
Geography 101—-Biloxi is not in the Ninth Ward.
Does anyone really think State Farm took this to court without having case history on their side. This is not the first hurricane to blow through Mississippi.
Rick, it\’s the first time they got caught and the first time they were held accountable.
World Book Encyclopedia:
Hurricane Katrina, the worst hurricane in USA history.
Open your dictionary to Hurricane, Flood, Storm, Surge, & Wind.
HURRICANE: A tropical cyclone with winds of 74 miles per hour or greater,
that is usually accompanied by rain, thunder, and lightning,
and that sometimes moves into temperate latitudes
FLOOD: described in the Bible as covering the earth in the time of Noah
(Michael Brown was Noah in Katrina)
WIND: a destructive force or influence
STORM: a disturbance of the atmosphere marked by wind and usually by rain, snow, hail, sleet, or thunder and lightning
: a heavy fall of rain, snow, or hail
: wind having a speed of 64 to 72 miles
(103 to 116 kilometers) per hour
: WHOLE GALE a serious disturbance of
any element of nature
: a disturbed or agitated state
: a sudden or violent commotion
: a heavy discharge of objects (as
missiles)
: a tumultuous outburst
SURGE:1 : a swelling, rolling, or sweeping forward like that of a wave or series of waves
: a large wave or billow
: a series of such swells or billows
: the resulting elevation of water level
It was right after Katrina, and we were short of allot of necessities. I was in Wal-Mart buying a large bag of Purina dog chow and was in line to check out. A woman behind me asked if I had a dog; I tried to be polite, but she continued to pry, and I was feeling a bit crabby so on impulse, I told her no, I was starting dog food diet again (brand name withheld, but one of the namebrands), although I probably shouldn\’t because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I\’d lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care unit with tubes coming out of most of my body and IV\’s in both arms. Her eyes about bugged out of her head.
I went on and on with the bogus diet story and she was totally buying it. I told her that it was an easy, inexpensive diet and that the way it works is to load your pockets or purse with nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The package said the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her.
Horrified, she asked if something in the dog food had poisoned me and was that why I ended up in the hospital.
I said no…..I\’d been sitting in the street licking my butt when a car hit me.
I think carriers should pay for non water damage, but not water damage. If you were in storm surge area and your house went under, then look to your flood coverage. I would think there should be ample evidence what caused the damage in question, but to deny all of the loss simply because there is flood damage, well, that just doesn\’t hold water. But I do like the Wal-Mart diet.
Most people don\’t understand their policy or what is insured, and it\’s doubtful this jury understood, either.
This water thingamajig reminds me of how polarized we are, we gots the pro-water flood insurers against the pro-winddamage pay me cuz I had insurance folk; it reminds of of the wal-mart vs union, Iraq war vs surrenderers, vegietariens vs carnievors, and even right vs left…even
reminds me of government; gridlock that is; you got the reds hatin\’ the blues, and the blues hatin\’ the reds; dat\’s why nuttin\’ gets done in Washington; it\’s like the big fish and the little fish; the big fish wants to eat, and the little fish wants to eat, but the big fish wants to eat the little fish, and the little fish doesn\’t want to be eat. See, that\’s like government. What we need is universal flood coverage; put a $500k cap on it, but a 15% deductible; that way you makes flood people take responsibility for some of their loss, but you can provide coverage to the really well off people like me who need extra coverage for their beach property. That, and we should tax gas 50 cents per gallon on top of the current taxes to balance the budget.
http://www.marrlawfirm.com/files/Order%20Sustaining%20Motion%20for%20Contempt.pdf
We Are Americans!
Land of the Free
The Home of the Brave!
IF WE DO NOT STAND UP
& STAND UNITED,
AS ONE NATION,
All of Us, will be riding in the back of the bus !
Red, Yellow, Black & White, Democrate & Republican
Every Homeowner & Future Homeowner in USA,
WE WILL NOT ALLOW BETRAYAL.
WE WILL NOT BE TREATED AS SLAVES.
WE WILL NOT BE HELD HOSTAGE!
Most Certainly not by one of Our Own…
Betraying Americans on our own Land,
it is time for America to take a stand!
Pay for Insurance
that will not provide
financial protection
for what you will need?
OUR FOUNDATION WILL CRUMBLE.
They have taken our money & our power too!
TO The Men & Women who read
their policy and Understood it too:
I commend you if you purchased
the policy after your review,
because that makes you more stupid
than the homeowners that did not read
or understand the exclusions.
So, Please stop pointing you finger at
your fellow man.
Hear our cry and Listen to the Facts.
We do not want anything for free!
We are, the Working Americans..
THE HOMEOWNERS OF THE USA
We Paid, We Trusted,
We were denied in our time of need
and we\’re still paying insurance for
a home that is destroyed or vanished.!
The only ones that owed us…
were the Insurance Companies
that we paid to financially protect our homes.
They turned their back & denied us by name.
It was Our Own, Fellow Americans,
That came rushing to our aide.
Can\’t get more Patriotic than that!
I still say Thank You,
To The Red, White & BLue.
Then those good neighbors…
left us with our children, outside in the rain.
TO ALL SELF EMPLOYED:
How many clients would you have
if you turned your back on them
when you saw them in need?
That is not the way to treat your neighbor
and certainly not the way
a good neighbor should be.
They should have a special suit for
false advertisement.
Good Neighbors they are not.,
I call them Pirates.
What they have done was Mutiny
It\’s Piracy.
It hurt more to see the children cry.
Their toys & clothes were all destroyed.
That Christmas, we had No Santa Clause.
Toys they did not receive but
A Gift They Did Receive…..
that will forever be remembered,
called Life\’s Lessons.
They too were Victims of Katrina.
When they saw the destruction,
they felt it too,
They heard Mommy & Daddy had
one of the top 5 insurance companies
in America.
They were insured, so they will be able
to buy new toys of their choice.
.When the children found about the
denied claims, innocence was lost.
adding insult to injury.
They too asked why.
They blamed all the damage on water.
Children know that was a lie because
never will there be a hurricane
without wind and rain.
These Children are Our Children,
They are Your Future.
We will pass the torch to them.
They will never forget that
Katrina Took their toys but
State Farm killed Santa Clause.
Make No Mistake About this….
We will Have Another Katrina.
The Homeowners policy DOES NOT Provide
Financial Protection for your Home.
Will not cover Collapse, Mold, Spray,
Rain, Overflow, Structure Damage,
Wind Driven Rain, Snow, Hail, Sleet,
Cyclone, Title wave,
and now…NO WIND.
The war is not over with Katrina
& they are back to the drawing board
with how to add more exclusions.
FLASH BULLITIN: ;Jan 2007:
A State Farm Insurance Co.
executive says the company
IS NO LONGER OFFERING W I N D coverage
for new customers in Mississippi\’s six southern
most counties and is reviewing whether to
continue extending the coverage on renewals.
Because the base hurricane deductible is
restricted to 2 percent in Mississippi,
increasing the deductible was
not an option as it has been in
other states, said Robert L. Trippel.
How can we pay for Hurricane Insurance
when it will not pay for Wind, Water or Collapse?
Get Off Your Butt & On Your Feet !
Ever saw a Hurricane without Wind or Rain?
I have the two options & would love more…
1. FEMA can sell HURRICANE INSURANCE
includes any and all damage resulting
from a natural disaster.
Homeowners will have 100% protection
without one calculating exclusion.
Guaranteed to be paid by our own USA.
If America can afford,
to spend $2 Billion/Week in Iraq…
then We best be able to afford
financial protection for our home.
This is What we Should be Fighting For!
Liberty & Justice
Land of the Free!
The American People…1st
Step Up & Stand Up for One Another!
ASK YOURSELF: WHAT COULD
POSSIBLY DAMAGE YOUR HOME?
Then check your policy.
I REFUSE TO BE HELD HOSTAGE BY ANYONE!
When I was a child, My brother started
blackmailing me. I finally got so angry,
I told on myself.
He got the same punishment & I was free.
What will we be loosing if the Ins Co leaves?
What do you fear? Change?
2. BECOME SELF-INSURED
BY CITY/STATE
We will save money & have better coverage too!
The city will have so much money they
will not be able to count it.
We send the Insurance Premium in with the
Property Tax bill.
Assessors Tax Office already has Property
Descriptions
THE CITY OF WAVELAND/BAY ST. LOUIS
has vanished.
All to be re-built to the strongest code
We Will Take Care of Our Own.
Anyone can be replaced.
If we get a hit before enough money is in
escrow…then we can let FEMA step in
to help us instead of the Insurance Co.
FEMA does not want to profit from us.
They do not want to trick us or cheat us.
FEMA paid 100%, without 1 denied claim
nor did they try to put the blame on wind.
We need change & before another Katrina!!!
My Fellow Americans…
I don\’t have much longer to live on this great land.
As God is my witness,
I am speaking the Truth.
in hopes that our children, can & willlearn from
Our Mistakes..
May they become stronger & wiser.
Our own Family, is in trouble.
We need to do something while
we are still alive, to be at their side.
Perhaps it\’s Going, back to the original plan.
The way I was taught to live…
with the original 10…..
10 Commandments that is.
All Instructions for us, left from God.
How to treat Your Neighbor.
Ironic those Good Neighbors already
had their name etched in stone…..
It\’s not about religion, or politics.
It\’s about our Spirit.
The Spirit of the American People.
Bring back Honor & Pride,
then send the rest to Iraq.
Charity…begins at home…
State farm denied the ENTIRE claim due to storm surge – please – even the simpliest minded creature would know some damage was wind related. I am glad they got calle don it. These people\’s lives were destroyed. They should have paid something at the start. Just like Allstate claim philosophy -take their premium – pay them nothing
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. settled out of court Friday with a Mississippi policyholder whose lawsuit over Hurricane Katrina damage was scheduled to be tried next week in federal court.
State Farm settled with Richard Tejedor of Long Beach only eight days after jurors awarded $2.5 million in punitive damages to a different policyholder – a couple who sued the Bloomington, Ill.-based insurer for denying their claim after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm.
Terms of the settlement in the Tejedor case will not be disclosed, said State Farm spokesman Fraser Engerman.
\”We are pleased that we were able to resolve this issue before it went to (trial),\” Engerman said.
Jack Denton, one of Tejedor\’s attorneys, confirmed that the case has been settled but declined further comment. Tejedor was one of hundreds of homeowners on Mississippi\’s Gulf Coast who sued their insurers for refusing to cover billions of dollars in damage from Katrina\’s storm surge.
Katrina destroyed his home, leaving nothing but a slab. A federal flood insurance policy paid him the maximum $200,000 for the home and $80,000 for its contents. Tejedor, however, said State Farm refused to pay for an additional $263,190 in damage to his home and its contents.
State Farm and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not from water, and that the policies exclude damage that could have been caused by a combination of both, even if hurricane-force winds preceded a storm\’s rising water.
State Farm invoked that policy language to deny a claim filed by Norman and Genevieve Broussard of Biloxi, whose lawsuit was tried last week in a federal court in Gulfport. U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. took part of that case out of jurors\’ hands, ruling that State Farm is liable for $223,292 in storm damage to the Broussards\’ home.
Jurors awarded the Broussards an additional $2.5 million in punitive damages.
The trial for Tejedor\’s lawsuit was scheduled to start Monday. State Farm attorneys had asked for the trial to be postponed, but Senter refused.
State Farm attorneys argued in court papers that a \”barrage of publicity\” about last week\’s multimillion dollar verdict may have tainted the jury for Tejedor\’s case. Senter, however, said postponing the trial would needlessly disrupt the court\’s schedule.
gotta love the logic here; because there was storm surge, there \’had to be\’ wind damage…just had to be…sorry, you weren\’t there to assess; you are basing what \’had to be\’ on your feelings. Feelings do not belong here. Yes, if wind damage occurred, it should be paid, but please don\’t give us the insulting drivel of your \’had to be\’ feelings. Better yet, let\’s resolved this on Oprah and all hold hands and sing together. Why, if only State Farm had feelings…!
Chad, please spare us from your dribble. This is not a which came first the chicken or the egg. The wind came first, did damage and then the water surge came and did the rest. To be a \”hurricane\” the winds must be at least 74+ miles per hour so how can you possibly say they could not have wind damage? And yes, some of us do have \”feelings\” for these people and their losses. While they should have purchased flood insurance to be fully covered is their fault but they are entitled to the coverage for which they paid for, even if it was a small amount due to the wind damage.
feelings, wo wo wo feelings…wo wo wo feelings…oh, I feel so much better about myself…I just renewed my \”feelings policy\”, I am now covered for whatever I feel should be covered for loss; thanks for all the help…I now \’feel\’ better than ever…with new feelguard coverage, I don\’t have to worry, the policy is so simple, it just states \”If you feel you have been wronged, or are owed something, please report to your agent, who will report a loss and have your feelings evaluated and compensated most fairly by our feeling staff according to what they feel you are owed\” Grow up.
Chad you need to grow up! Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby?
wow, a drop on my head, wow, I would really feel that, but it has nothing to do with all you moonbats using your \’I just know\’ expertise to look into the past and the future…you must feel real smart…gosh, I feel so bad…not.
Chad, take a chill pill along with the other drugs you must be taking.
I know how you feel. Others have felt that way before. What I have found is….
take responsibilty for protecting yourself and your stuff. Understand that once in a while something unforeseen happens and you have to deal with it. I can\’t believe those people lived there and
didnt have flood insurance. I cant believe a bank loaned them money without flood insurance. I can\’t believe that when the **** hits the fan so many people react by putting their hand out, reflexively.
the drugs only are used to kill the effects of me being dropped on my head…it\’s so painful to disagree on facts rather than feelings…I must be just evil…better go review my \’feelings policy\’ for coverage again! I\’m all about fair; life must be fair, or its all unfair!