Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Virtual Claims Adjuster - 3
Forums  
Catastrophe Central
Unanswered Active Topics Forums Search
Forums > Catastrophe Claim Handling > Flood Claims
CA U.S. District Court says Katrina storm surge ..
Last Post 29 Aug 2007 01:30 AM by Larry Wright. 5 Replies.
Printer Friendly
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
Roy CuppsUser is Offline
CatAdjuster.org
Member
Member
Send Private Message
Posts:359

--
27 Aug 2007 06:50 PM  

is not excluded by excess policy's flood exclusion.

In the Insurance Coverage Law Blog (located here), the author David Rossmiller reviews the August 16 decision in Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.,  lawsuit.  

It appears that the decision was at least in part based on the lack of the phrase "whether driven by wind or not,"   

Some good reading if you get a chance check it out.
Adjuster Directory | The Licensing Page | The Cane Page
Larry WrightUser is Offline
Member
Member
Send Private Message
Posts:96

--
28 Aug 2007 01:33 AM  
Is there a link for that Roy?
No one is absolutely worthless, at the very least you can serve as a bad example.
Steve BeaumontUser is Offline
Founding Member
Member
Member
Send Private Message
Posts:330

--
28 Aug 2007 01:50 AM  
Click where is says "(located here)". Good article. why they chose to have this tried in CA is beyond me, except for the fact they they weould be hard pressed to find an impartial jury along the gulf coast considering how big they are there. Plus there is a huge political disadvantage of trying it there. I still can't imagine CA being any better.
Roy CuppsUser is Offline
CatAdjuster.org
Member
Member
Send Private Message
Posts:359

--
28 Aug 2007 02:31 AM  
Hi Larry, sorry about that , the link was about a mile long so I put it under that text. I didn't mean to hide it.
Adjuster Directory | The Licensing Page | The Cane Page
Ray HallUser is Offline
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Send Private Message
Posts:898

--
28 Aug 2007 05:33 PM  

I have seen several layers  of cover that have the language in the upper layers that the amount of cover is the "same as the underlying first layer". I am trying to think what was the intent of the upper layer(s) not being as broad as the underlying?

** Reread the article and did not take into account the SIR between 100  to 500 million. This opine may stand.
Larry WrightUser is Offline
Member
Member
Send Private Message
Posts:96

--
29 Aug 2007 01:30 AM  

It presents a good argument for form following excess policies.
No one is absolutely worthless, at the very least you can serve as a bad example.
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Forums > Catastrophe Claim Handling > Flood Claims
Active Forums 4.1


Adjuster Chat Room Activity
Room:Users
The Den 1



MyProfile

Introducing  "MyProfile", your space on CADO, create it, arrange it, share it! 
Click here to create your page!


An Adjuster to Adjuster Community
Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use
Copyright 1995-2007 by CatAdjuster.org Adjuster to Adjuster