Another flawed decision by the Louisiana courts. (not surprising) How can the drywall be “not defective” for the purpose it was intended when it poses a risk to inhabitants of a dwelling? Judge Medley is a fool. The insurance industry should aggressively challenge this decision. Suit should be filed against the Chinese for producing this crap. It is not suitable to use in dwelling construction hence it’s “merchantability” is unacceptable. American insures shouldn’t have to clean up another Chinese mess.
I agree completely. The judge is just looking for a way to have insurance cover the dry wall claims regardless of the contrat (policy) the insure bought. I too hope the carrier fights this and/or claims are aggressively pursued against the Chinese manufacturers.
The question now becomes, how many states are going to refer to this decision in an effort to avoid having to make the decision themselves. They may have just opened Pandora’s box people.
If the oompany uses the standard “all-risk” exclusions then it should be excluded as a “latent defect.” How can the court say that the drywall is not defective when the suit was brought on the basis of defective material. In Cajun speak I guess that defective doesn’t include a product having a defect. Quoting the court, “…the Chinese drywall defect is not one that renders the drywall unable to perform the purpose of drywall.” If that is the case then the company and remove the suspect drywall land install it in another house because it can perform the purpose of drywall. RIGHT. What building department will let you use a known defective product in new or remodeled construction?
Another great way to create an attractive business environment and get solvent insurers to re-enter the market and provide insurance competition. Get ready, Louisian Citizens Insurance Co. for the next wave of business.
I have been in the insurance (and claims) business for a very long time and can’t believe this will stand. There is clearly no coverage under any standard homeowners policy for this. I am confident this judges opinion will be overturned. If not, gawd help us all – – – -.
Louisiana has always been a drain on the economy and I’m not surprised that this idiot judge made this ruling. Louisiana is a welfare state that sucks more taxpayer dollars from the federal government than it’s worth. We can only hope “the big one” will finally eradicate the city to the point it doesn’t warrant re-building. Why isn’t anyone incensed over the damn Chinese? That country makes crap and sells it to stupid Americans. Now American courts want Americans to pay the consequences. Screw the Chinese. A class action suite should be filed by the Attorney General for ALL damage claims related to their faulty drywall. Suit should also be filed against the idiots in this country who failed to test this crap before using it.
The Chinese are holding so much of our bonds there is no way our government or an international court will allow a class action suit and the Chinsese have already told everyon to “take their best shot”.
That is why civil courts are looking for other sources and making such liberal decisions on this issue.
This is what happens when a communist country hold the cards.
Any company that does business in Louisiana is opening themselves up for more of this garbage. It is only going to get worse. In fact, if I ran a company that did business in Louisiana, I’d pull out, plain and simple.
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.
Why not just say the policy is intended to make the public feel good. Why have all these pesky definitions and conditions in the policy that just make people anxious? We’re gonna ignore them anyway!
Snyder: you’ve obviously lost your business sense and have joined the aging fleet of Americans with an entitlement attitude. Insurance companies aren’t welfare agencies and policies were never intended to cover everthing conceivable much less defective products. The greedy contractors who bought this crap, the consumer testing agenices who are supposed to certify this crap, building inspectors who approved it’s use should pay the piper. Many people should pay, not the property insurers. You want Cadillac coverage but want to pay Hyundai premiums.
p.s. by the way, I’ve been in P&C claims management for over 35 years.
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
To Geoff: I think the point of the previous comments is that the Faulty, Inadequate or Defective Planning Exclusion is in fact not vague at all. Latent defects in construction are not covered in an insurance policy with this exclusion. If this exclusion did not exist, than a homeowners policy would be in essence a home warranty.
I would be shocked if this is not overturned on appeal.
Since this is an insurance industry publication, it’s a pretty safe guess that most of us are in the industry. What third sub-basement at AIG did you work in for 12 years? Who left whom?
Yes Geoff I agree. The insurance companies should take the bulk of the blame in this one. After all they’re the one’e with any money. Right? Who else can we blame. No one. Anybody remotely involved in the building industry is broke or going broke. I like what the court said. The drywall isn’t faulty so now I guess there will be no reason to remove it. If the Chinese can live in polluted, filthy conditions without complaint, certainly we can as well. And LA is a good place to start.
“Posted On: March 30, 2010, 5:57 pm CDT
Posted By: snyder
Comment:
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.”
None of your premium dollars go to pay for this…it’s an exclusion. Allegedly working for an insurer doesn’t mean you can read an insurance policy. ISO equivalent forms clearly exclude this.
Posted On: March 31, 2010, 8:45 am CDT
Posted By: Geoff
Comment:
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
===============
There’s nothing vague about the exclusions that apply to these losses. Anyone who can read an insurance policy objectively knows there is no coverage.
Another flawed decision by the Louisiana courts. (not surprising) How can the drywall be “not defective” for the purpose it was intended when it poses a risk to inhabitants of a dwelling? Judge Medley is a fool. The insurance industry should aggressively challenge this decision. Suit should be filed against the Chinese for producing this crap. It is not suitable to use in dwelling construction hence it’s “merchantability” is unacceptable. American insures shouldn’t have to clean up another Chinese mess.
I agree completely. The judge is just looking for a way to have insurance cover the dry wall claims regardless of the contrat (policy) the insure bought. I too hope the carrier fights this and/or claims are aggressively pursued against the Chinese manufacturers.
The populist mentality of Huey Long is alive and well in Louisiana.
The question now becomes, how many states are going to refer to this decision in an effort to avoid having to make the decision themselves. They may have just opened Pandora’s box people.
If the oompany uses the standard “all-risk” exclusions then it should be excluded as a “latent defect.” How can the court say that the drywall is not defective when the suit was brought on the basis of defective material. In Cajun speak I guess that defective doesn’t include a product having a defect. Quoting the court, “…the Chinese drywall defect is not one that renders the drywall unable to perform the purpose of drywall.” If that is the case then the company and remove the suspect drywall land install it in another house because it can perform the purpose of drywall. RIGHT. What building department will let you use a known defective product in new or remodeled construction?
Another great way to create an attractive business environment and get solvent insurers to re-enter the market and provide insurance competition. Get ready, Louisian Citizens Insurance Co. for the next wave of business.
I have been in the insurance (and claims) business for a very long time and can’t believe this will stand. There is clearly no coverage under any standard homeowners policy for this. I am confident this judges opinion will be overturned. If not, gawd help us all – – – -.
Louisiana has always been a drain on the economy and I’m not surprised that this idiot judge made this ruling. Louisiana is a welfare state that sucks more taxpayer dollars from the federal government than it’s worth. We can only hope “the big one” will finally eradicate the city to the point it doesn’t warrant re-building. Why isn’t anyone incensed over the damn Chinese? That country makes crap and sells it to stupid Americans. Now American courts want Americans to pay the consequences. Screw the Chinese. A class action suite should be filed by the Attorney General for ALL damage claims related to their faulty drywall. Suit should also be filed against the idiots in this country who failed to test this crap before using it.
The Chinese are holding so much of our bonds there is no way our government or an international court will allow a class action suit and the Chinsese have already told everyon to “take their best shot”.
That is why civil courts are looking for other sources and making such liberal decisions on this issue.
This is what happens when a communist country hold the cards.
Any company that does business in Louisiana is opening themselves up for more of this garbage. It is only going to get worse. In fact, if I ran a company that did business in Louisiana, I’d pull out, plain and simple.
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.
Why not just say the policy is intended to make the public feel good. Why have all these pesky definitions and conditions in the policy that just make people anxious? We’re gonna ignore them anyway!
Snyder: you’ve obviously lost your business sense and have joined the aging fleet of Americans with an entitlement attitude. Insurance companies aren’t welfare agencies and policies were never intended to cover everthing conceivable much less defective products. The greedy contractors who bought this crap, the consumer testing agenices who are supposed to certify this crap, building inspectors who approved it’s use should pay the piper. Many people should pay, not the property insurers. You want Cadillac coverage but want to pay Hyundai premiums.
p.s. by the way, I’ve been in P&C claims management for over 35 years.
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
you do realize Geoff that that most if not all of us are insurance professionals in here right?
To Geoff: I think the point of the previous comments is that the Faulty, Inadequate or Defective Planning Exclusion is in fact not vague at all. Latent defects in construction are not covered in an insurance policy with this exclusion. If this exclusion did not exist, than a homeowners policy would be in essence a home warranty.
I would be shocked if this is not overturned on appeal.
Since this is an insurance industry publication, it’s a pretty safe guess that most of us are in the industry. What third sub-basement at AIG did you work in for 12 years? Who left whom?
Yes Geoff I agree. The insurance companies should take the bulk of the blame in this one. After all they’re the one’e with any money. Right? Who else can we blame. No one. Anybody remotely involved in the building industry is broke or going broke. I like what the court said. The drywall isn’t faulty so now I guess there will be no reason to remove it. If the Chinese can live in polluted, filthy conditions without complaint, certainly we can as well. And LA is a good place to start.
“Posted On: March 30, 2010, 5:57 pm CDT
Posted By: snyder
Comment:
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.”
None of your premium dollars go to pay for this…it’s an exclusion. Allegedly working for an insurer doesn’t mean you can read an insurance policy. ISO equivalent forms clearly exclude this.
Posted On: March 31, 2010, 8:45 am CDT
Posted By: Geoff
Comment:
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
===============
There’s nothing vague about the exclusions that apply to these losses. Anyone who can read an insurance policy objectively knows there is no coverage.