First, let me say that I would be very surprised to find that any carrier authorized their adjusters to take signed “releases” from insureds acknowledging that their claim is flood related. There would be no reason to do that. If that is, in fact, going on, then the carriers need to step in and end the practice.
As far as the AG’s suit, while I haven’t been able to scare up a copy yet, the news articles I’ve read don’t even mention adjusting practices. They all mention invalidating the policy language excluding flood, for a variety of reasons. In that regard, I would offer the following observations:
First, if the MS Insurance Commissioner has any guts, he’ll intervene with a separation of powers argument. Since setting and accepting policy language is a regulatory (administrative) role, it should be outside of the AG’s duties. And, last I heard, it was the legislature, not the courts, which decide what is and is not the public policy. Left to just arguing deceptive trade practices or the vagueness of policy language, the suit is a sure loser.
Second, I don’t believe for a minute that the MS AG really believes in the merits of his suit. In my opinion, he is: A.) looking for votes; B.) looking for campaign contributions from the plaintiff bar; C.) running interference for the private suit being prepared by Scruggs by getting a head start on public opinion, and a lot of free discovery; D.) is planning to pass this off, a la the tobacco suit, to Scruggs and put Scruggs on the State payroll; or, E.) all of the above.
It would serve the MS AG right if the homeowner’s carriers (those willing to continue writing in MS) started making flood coverage “mandatory” statewide; in other words, all new and renewal business will include a premium for flood. Wait until the public see what that looks like. It won’t be the limited coverage, tax-payer subsidized low price you get from the Feds.
If you want the cheaper Fed coverage, or don’t want the coverage at all, you’ll have to sign a “Flood Rejection” form, sort of like UM.
If the suit is successful, that is surely what you will see. Since hardly anyone will want to pay the private insurance rates, there will be a paper trail of rejections. What will the AG do for an encore? You know, when there is another storm, and 3 out of 4 properties are still uninsured. What then?
This Spitzer-wannabe MS AG needs to make sure that he doesn’t get trapped by the law of unintended consequences.
Come on Man, Get REAL….Where have you been all your life ? Don’t you read the papers or follow the news ? The road to the State House is usually paved with Lies and Deceit. Do you think a company like State Farm would screw around with their public reputation ? Sorry, Bub, You be “Very Wrong” on this one ! Don’t worry the future will tell the Real Story.
Chris,
It all goes back to “If the MS Ins. Comm. has any guts….” George Dale v. Jim Hood? Not likely!
I agree with you, but it is all down hill from there.
Kelly Jo
If it was not true then why the suit?
Do the insurers think the people of the south are that dumb?
You all need to quit pickin on our GOOD politicians.
To Hey…just because someone makes an allegation in a complaint does not make it true. Do you have ANY idea how many groundless and meritless lawsuits are filed everyday?
Any if the politicians in your state are ‘gettin picked on’, it is probably because they deserve it!
Hey, Hey…I do work for an insurance company. If your politicos are taking ‘such good care of you’, why don’t they pay for the damage? Further, why doesn’t your legislature make flood insurance mandatory so that the good folks in MS can cry about the high cost of insurance?
This is a case of many people failing to see the forest for the trees, and failing to see the repercussions of litigation that is poorly thought out.
Do you believe your politicos can have all the problems solved with the a few words filed with a court? Do you believe that litigation is a magic wand that fixes everything?
Having now read the entire Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, including Exhibit “A”, which is the alleged smoking gun, all I can say is that Mr. Hood must be a product of the Mississippi educational system, and must be totally unscathed by any knowledge of the insurance industry and its practices.
He would have done well to have consulted with the Insurance Commssioner before filing his suit; but, I guess because the IC doesn’t support his “cause”, that was out of the question.
And no, I don’t work for any homeowner’s insurance carrier
Doesn’t everybody know we love to get things we didn’t pay for? If we didn’t buy wind insurance, we get FEMA to pay for the roof. If we didn’t buy flood insurance, we get a wind carrier to pay for a new house.
Why don’t we outlaw the purchase of flood insurance so everybody will have equality?
It is sad, but these are the times in which we can sue one another when a breach of contract has NOT happened. This is the case in MS. Whether you like or not, an insurance policy is a contract signed and agreed to by the homeowner. Like all contracts, it contains,” in writing,” what is and is not included within itself, abd every homeowner should be aware of these provisions. Since 1968, again thats 1968, the government has offered flood insurance because insurance providers DO NOT and HAVE NEVER offered it. For the attorney general of MS to sue for coverage of damages that are not included in the policy is irresponsible. While his intent may be just, his lawsuit is without merit. MS governor Haley Barbour has even stated that this is not the answer to this problem and that talks with Federal Government, Department of Insurnace, and other federal agencies are needed to figure out an answer on how to help the people of the gulf coast. The legal precedent alone would be catastrophic to the legal system if someone is allowed to sue for addition of contract provisions after the contract has been agreed upon and validated by both parties. I am from the MS gulf coast, and my family had damage to our property like most everyone else down here did. If Jim Hood wants to help, there are plenty of ways he can come down here and chip in. But they all involve a little sweat.
In every hurricane wind because of falling barometric pressures, develops and pushes water into waves surging above sea level. Extreme winds of a major hurricane push the water into waves which collectively form a large upside-down dome above the sea level. Wherever the lowest barometric pressure in a hurricane is located, the wind is sure to follow. With the extreme winds of a cat 3 hurricane blowing along the sea surface, this ‘dome’ of water is sure to be close behind the wind.
What came first the wind or the flood? Of course it was the wind. Imagine a video of a structure facing Katrina on its northeast side, somewhere in Pass Christian, Bay St.Louis or Waveland, with conditions easily of cat 4 winds, while a lagging tidal surge still roaring along as a diminishing cat 5.
The roof’s eaves facing into the wind of this structure, would be bowing from the stress, as metal nails create creaking and snapping sounds as they moved inside against wood. The roof decking would start bowing and lifting, tearing away as shingles whiz by twisting through the air like high-speed pieces of tar-covered cardboard. With the front-face decking shearing off the roof, the rear-face decking strains to hold onto the roof framing before suddenly ripping away, but not before taking with it parts of the roof trusses.
Meanwhile, with the dome of the wind driven surge roaring closer and higher to this house, the once covered windows shatter allowing heavy rain to shower sideways into the home’s interior finished living space. Within minutes a raging collection of waves deepens and mangles the foundation structure, collapsing it into a washing machine like agitation of saltwater.
In my opinion, in the hardest hit areas where the flood totaled homes and buildings beyond any sign or recognition, wind as a peril bears some responsibility. Elsewhere outside this area, the physical evidence is more discernible.
While the vast percentage of destruction was from surging waters from the gulf which flooded those areas, wind’s responsibility as a peril is enough to be a considerable financial aid to a homeowner who has especially under-insured him or herself under their flood policy. The house I described above firmly could have suffered 15% destruction from wind and only wind, first before the flood destroyed the remaining 85% afterwards.
Pro-rated by peril to the value of the physical structure, and to the expense incurred to live elsewhere, is the required approach to these homeowners in the hardest hit areas. This is something certainly a good AG will make sure is not overlooked by insurance carriers who are operating business in the state of MS.
Anything beyond this towards a position which favors homeowner policies covering damage cause by a ‘hurricane,’ will have to be judged hopefully by a jury of level-headed citizens.
Very interesting analysis of what part wind plays in a storm surge, but totally irrelevant to 90% of the policies at issue.
The flood exclusion is for flood regardless of underlying cause or sequence of events. There is no provision in the contract for pro-rating damage from flood into purely flood vs. part of the flood due to wind.
The policy does cover wind damage, and to my knowledge no carrier is disputing that fact.
The AG isn’t trying to apportion wind vs. flood; he’s trying to force the carriers to pay for all flood because he alleges that the flood exclusion is against public policy (even though aproved by the DOI), and because he alleges that the policies that clearly exclude flood are somehow deceptive. Both of these argumnets are without merit.
He is also alleging unfair claims practices against the homeowners carriers, even though his document “evidence” appears to point the finger at the NFIP.
I am not aware of any carrier unwilling to consider apportioning pure wind vs. wind-driven flood damage, although, as you concede, this is very difficult to do when one peril may have caused some damage, but the other peril totaled the property before an inspection of the first could be done.
As far as level headed jurors deciding the case, the suit filed by the AG will get little, if any, juror review. The injunctive relief sought is at the judge’s discretion. The public policy issues are also matters of law, to be decided by the judge. In the suit filed, the jury will be allowed to decide if the policies were deceptive.
The suit in no way addresses the real issue and difficulty in adjusting these losses, nor is it intended to. The intent of the suit is to negate the provisions of a legally binding contract so that the need to adjust the claims is obviated. That’s the slippery slope.
Once the AG invalidates one legally binding contract, all legally binding contracts are at risk. Result: no one will want to contract business in MS.
Lets keep our eye on the ball here. The issue raised by the AG goes far beyond this storm. It threatens the economic well-being of the state as a whole, far into the future.
What is it about public office that they attract so many unprincipled jersk?
First, let me say that I would be very surprised to find that any carrier authorized their adjusters to take signed “releases” from insureds acknowledging that their claim is flood related. There would be no reason to do that. If that is, in fact, going on, then the carriers need to step in and end the practice.
As far as the AG’s suit, while I haven’t been able to scare up a copy yet, the news articles I’ve read don’t even mention adjusting practices. They all mention invalidating the policy language excluding flood, for a variety of reasons. In that regard, I would offer the following observations:
First, if the MS Insurance Commissioner has any guts, he’ll intervene with a separation of powers argument. Since setting and accepting policy language is a regulatory (administrative) role, it should be outside of the AG’s duties. And, last I heard, it was the legislature, not the courts, which decide what is and is not the public policy. Left to just arguing deceptive trade practices or the vagueness of policy language, the suit is a sure loser.
Second, I don’t believe for a minute that the MS AG really believes in the merits of his suit. In my opinion, he is: A.) looking for votes; B.) looking for campaign contributions from the plaintiff bar; C.) running interference for the private suit being prepared by Scruggs by getting a head start on public opinion, and a lot of free discovery; D.) is planning to pass this off, a la the tobacco suit, to Scruggs and put Scruggs on the State payroll; or, E.) all of the above.
It would serve the MS AG right if the homeowner’s carriers (those willing to continue writing in MS) started making flood coverage “mandatory” statewide; in other words, all new and renewal business will include a premium for flood. Wait until the public see what that looks like. It won’t be the limited coverage, tax-payer subsidized low price you get from the Feds.
If you want the cheaper Fed coverage, or don’t want the coverage at all, you’ll have to sign a “Flood Rejection” form, sort of like UM.
If the suit is successful, that is surely what you will see. Since hardly anyone will want to pay the private insurance rates, there will be a paper trail of rejections. What will the AG do for an encore? You know, when there is another storm, and 3 out of 4 properties are still uninsured. What then?
This Spitzer-wannabe MS AG needs to make sure that he doesn’t get trapped by the law of unintended consequences.
Come on Man, Get REAL….Where have you been all your life ? Don’t you read the papers or follow the news ? The road to the State House is usually paved with Lies and Deceit. Do you think a company like State Farm would screw around with their public reputation ? Sorry, Bub, You be “Very Wrong” on this one ! Don’t worry the future will tell the Real Story.
Chris,
It all goes back to “If the MS Ins. Comm. has any guts….” George Dale v. Jim Hood? Not likely!
I agree with you, but it is all down hill from there.
Kelly Jo
If it was not true then why the suit?
Do the insurers think the people of the south are that dumb?
You all need to quit pickin on our GOOD politicians.
To Hey…just because someone makes an allegation in a complaint does not make it true. Do you have ANY idea how many groundless and meritless lawsuits are filed everyday?
Any if the politicians in your state are ‘gettin picked on’, it is probably because they deserve it!
Sam do you work for an insurance company, maybe?….. I do not know….Farmers?
Our good olde south politico’s are doin just fine THEY will be the ONES who take care of us down here
Hey, Hey…I do work for an insurance company. If your politicos are taking ‘such good care of you’, why don’t they pay for the damage? Further, why doesn’t your legislature make flood insurance mandatory so that the good folks in MS can cry about the high cost of insurance?
This is a case of many people failing to see the forest for the trees, and failing to see the repercussions of litigation that is poorly thought out.
Do you believe your politicos can have all the problems solved with the a few words filed with a court? Do you believe that litigation is a magic wand that fixes everything?
Having now read the entire Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, including Exhibit “A”, which is the alleged smoking gun, all I can say is that Mr. Hood must be a product of the Mississippi educational system, and must be totally unscathed by any knowledge of the insurance industry and its practices.
He would have done well to have consulted with the Insurance Commssioner before filing his suit; but, I guess because the IC doesn’t support his “cause”, that was out of the question.
And no, I don’t work for any homeowner’s insurance carrier
Doesn’t everybody know we love to get things we didn’t pay for? If we didn’t buy wind insurance, we get FEMA to pay for the roof. If we didn’t buy flood insurance, we get a wind carrier to pay for a new house.
Why don’t we outlaw the purchase of flood insurance so everybody will have equality?
It is sad, but these are the times in which we can sue one another when a breach of contract has NOT happened. This is the case in MS. Whether you like or not, an insurance policy is a contract signed and agreed to by the homeowner. Like all contracts, it contains,” in writing,” what is and is not included within itself, abd every homeowner should be aware of these provisions. Since 1968, again thats 1968, the government has offered flood insurance because insurance providers DO NOT and HAVE NEVER offered it. For the attorney general of MS to sue for coverage of damages that are not included in the policy is irresponsible. While his intent may be just, his lawsuit is without merit. MS governor Haley Barbour has even stated that this is not the answer to this problem and that talks with Federal Government, Department of Insurnace, and other federal agencies are needed to figure out an answer on how to help the people of the gulf coast. The legal precedent alone would be catastrophic to the legal system if someone is allowed to sue for addition of contract provisions after the contract has been agreed upon and validated by both parties. I am from the MS gulf coast, and my family had damage to our property like most everyone else down here did. If Jim Hood wants to help, there are plenty of ways he can come down here and chip in. But they all involve a little sweat.
In every hurricane wind because of falling barometric pressures, develops and pushes water into waves surging above sea level. Extreme winds of a major hurricane push the water into waves which collectively form a large upside-down dome above the sea level. Wherever the lowest barometric pressure in a hurricane is located, the wind is sure to follow. With the extreme winds of a cat 3 hurricane blowing along the sea surface, this ‘dome’ of water is sure to be close behind the wind.
What came first the wind or the flood? Of course it was the wind. Imagine a video of a structure facing Katrina on its northeast side, somewhere in Pass Christian, Bay St.Louis or Waveland, with conditions easily of cat 4 winds, while a lagging tidal surge still roaring along as a diminishing cat 5.
The roof’s eaves facing into the wind of this structure, would be bowing from the stress, as metal nails create creaking and snapping sounds as they moved inside against wood. The roof decking would start bowing and lifting, tearing away as shingles whiz by twisting through the air like high-speed pieces of tar-covered cardboard. With the front-face decking shearing off the roof, the rear-face decking strains to hold onto the roof framing before suddenly ripping away, but not before taking with it parts of the roof trusses.
Meanwhile, with the dome of the wind driven surge roaring closer and higher to this house, the once covered windows shatter allowing heavy rain to shower sideways into the home’s interior finished living space. Within minutes a raging collection of waves deepens and mangles the foundation structure, collapsing it into a washing machine like agitation of saltwater.
In my opinion, in the hardest hit areas where the flood totaled homes and buildings beyond any sign or recognition, wind as a peril bears some responsibility. Elsewhere outside this area, the physical evidence is more discernible.
While the vast percentage of destruction was from surging waters from the gulf which flooded those areas, wind’s responsibility as a peril is enough to be a considerable financial aid to a homeowner who has especially under-insured him or herself under their flood policy. The house I described above firmly could have suffered 15% destruction from wind and only wind, first before the flood destroyed the remaining 85% afterwards.
Pro-rated by peril to the value of the physical structure, and to the expense incurred to live elsewhere, is the required approach to these homeowners in the hardest hit areas. This is something certainly a good AG will make sure is not overlooked by insurance carriers who are operating business in the state of MS.
Anything beyond this towards a position which favors homeowner policies covering damage cause by a ‘hurricane,’ will have to be judged hopefully by a jury of level-headed citizens.
Very interesting analysis of what part wind plays in a storm surge, but totally irrelevant to 90% of the policies at issue.
The flood exclusion is for flood regardless of underlying cause or sequence of events. There is no provision in the contract for pro-rating damage from flood into purely flood vs. part of the flood due to wind.
The policy does cover wind damage, and to my knowledge no carrier is disputing that fact.
The AG isn’t trying to apportion wind vs. flood; he’s trying to force the carriers to pay for all flood because he alleges that the flood exclusion is against public policy (even though aproved by the DOI), and because he alleges that the policies that clearly exclude flood are somehow deceptive. Both of these argumnets are without merit.
He is also alleging unfair claims practices against the homeowners carriers, even though his document “evidence” appears to point the finger at the NFIP.
I am not aware of any carrier unwilling to consider apportioning pure wind vs. wind-driven flood damage, although, as you concede, this is very difficult to do when one peril may have caused some damage, but the other peril totaled the property before an inspection of the first could be done.
As far as level headed jurors deciding the case, the suit filed by the AG will get little, if any, juror review. The injunctive relief sought is at the judge’s discretion. The public policy issues are also matters of law, to be decided by the judge. In the suit filed, the jury will be allowed to decide if the policies were deceptive.
The suit in no way addresses the real issue and difficulty in adjusting these losses, nor is it intended to. The intent of the suit is to negate the provisions of a legally binding contract so that the need to adjust the claims is obviated. That’s the slippery slope.
Once the AG invalidates one legally binding contract, all legally binding contracts are at risk. Result: no one will want to contract business in MS.
Lets keep our eye on the ball here. The issue raised by the AG goes far beyond this storm. It threatens the economic well-being of the state as a whole, far into the future.