It seems to me that Mr Lott has confused himself with Thomas Lott of the old Okie Sooners and the triple option wishbone.  So far, he's pulled it out of the fullback's belly and right now is either going to have to run or pitch to the trailing back.

I remember the wordings when I started. The words were tricky but the entire policy was on one page, both sides. Then they introduced replacement cost and plain language. Now it is not uncommon for the policy to be a 60 + page booklet. I remember in California, a company trying to exclude mold by adding extra exclusions to the ammendment to the exclusions. When you leave the door open for people to claim they are confused or didn't understand, don't alway figure on your lawyers to extridite you. To me this seems a lawsuit motivated by desperation and convient memory.

Apparently the good folks of Mississippi have elected someone to the Senate who cannot so much as read a plain language insurance policy, or is so behind the times he still thinks the old one page policies apply ( although a couple companies doing business in the south do still write those policies and sell them as an attachment to their life insurance policies), or is willing to simply pander to the public without doing any research of even a basic nature. And, apparently the good folks of Mississippi are willing to have their senator do an end run around the separation of powers that leaves such things as insurance regulation as a power reserved to the states because it exceeds the limited powers granted to Congress in the constitution.

And apparently, we are willing to accept such a senator as one of the leaders of his party in the Congress. And some wonder why I and the rest of the country continue to become more disillusioned with our politicians.

An additional concern in changing the language of the policy is that the current language has a body of law defining many of the term used in the policy. A complete revision means a new round of lawsuits as insurance companies and attorneys fight over the meaning of the new words and whether an ambiguity on the disclaimer of the first page in large bold letters takes precedent over a more explicit explanation later in the policy. And who pays for all the attorney and court costs of all the legal wrangling? The good folks of Mississippi as they swallow their higher premiums for decades to come. And the good folks of all the other states who elect similar folks to represent them in the Congress of the United States.

Steve, a new article addressing your very comments about
what's going on in MS:

http://www.propertyandcasualtyinsurancenews.com/cms/nupc/Breaking+News/2007/04/03-MISSRIP-dh

Great comments you made also on the concerns about rewriting the policies and the ensuing lawsuits this would produce!

Many years ago, State Farm wrote a plain language policy, no frills, just coverage. They ended up in all kind of law suits, as attorneys found holes in the policy. That only lasted a few years and they went back to the standard policy language. Policies must be written the way they are written for obvious purposes. All policies have "Please Read Your Policy" on the first page. Most insured's just throw them into their filing cabinets and forget them until they have a loss. The statement the "This is not a flood policy" also appears on the front sheet. How is that hard to understand, unless your name is Trent Lott.

A sign on a Microwave at Wal-Mart saying "THIS IS NOT A TV"

Gee, I guess too many people were staring at the microwaves trying to watch "As the World Turns", huh?  (this is a joke)

Makes as much sense, doesn't it?

Wonder if books should now have a caveat on them saying "You might learn something"?

I shake my head and wonder, "what's the world coming to?"   

Meg,
I started shaking my head a long time ago.......

Welcome aboard!!!!

Joe L

Found what is needed.
This would require reading. Maybe a policy with illustration, Photos, showing a flooded house with the be red X over it. Then a photo showing wind damage to roof covering, this having a Green check mark over it, and etc.
I mean this as a joke but sad to say, may come to this.

Insurance for Dummies (Paperback)
http://www.amazon.com/Insurance-Dummies-Jack-Hungelmann/dp/0764552945

Although I agree that agents could and should do more to educate their policyholders about what they are buying, I find it hard to believe that the average consumer doesn't realize the policy isn't a flood policy.  If a hurricane is threatening an area, every eye in that area is on the Weather Channel, and every commercial break contains an NFIP commercial, stating that most homeowner policies DON'T cover flooding.  The policy is written the way it is written because it has to be.  It is written in "legaleze". SF's policy contains such ridiculous wording as "this policy does not cover surface water, WHETHER DRIVEN BY WIND OR NOT", but who can understand that language?

THe inverse law of insurance policies. The policy holders recall of exclusions and coverage explainations decreases after a loss in direct porportion the the size of the loss.

A big problem with  insurance losses on the Gulf and Atlantic Coast from Hurricane damage is the adjusters are not able to explain to the insureds in plain language the flood exclusions by reading it out loud.

How about this one? Lott quoted as saying he won't settle his claim because the sisters sued by Renfroe?

I guess we know why they are being asked to speak to the committee hearings he is on regarding Katrina claim issues!


http://www.sunherald.com/199/story/24441.html

Not only that, don't forget the pressure ole Dickie put on SF to try and get them have Renfroe drop the suit against the sisters or the global settlement he was working on all the outstanding cases would be jeopardy. Keep in mind that settlement for some strange reason didn't go through and ole Dickie pulled his support of it and I wonder if it was just a coincidence that his pulling his support had anything to do with the fact the week before SF told him no to putting pressure on Renfroe. If SF did what is alleged, they deserve to get nailed, but through the criminal courts and the state and federal regulators. I have yet to hear anyone tell me what justification there is for these women to steal this paperwork and give it to a plaintiff attorney to use in lawsuits against SF.(a plaintiff attorney that was paying them $150,000 a year at that for "consultant work") To me that act is outright theft and even though they ended up giving them to the authorities, my $ would bet Dickie was involved in it way before the authorities.

This is up now on the Ms Attorney General website which is his summary of the investigation against SF to include on page 35 a copy of the infamous yellow sticky note many news articles have commented on. There is also the copy of the corporate directive to claims on their procedures for handling Katrina claims, info on the case number on the Renfroe/Rigsby case, and make sure to read page 9 on the allegations made by the AG as to why independents were used" to avoid contractural relationships with policyholders"???

http://www.ago.state.ms.us/pressreleases/statefarm/reporthousesubcom.pdf

Interesting Gale. I can't answer that question not being familiar with the file. Seems there is much we will never understand about the two sides of the story on these files. I'm a little discouraged reading the news stories today about the engineering firm/carrier emails(not sure if this is already posted on CADO or not):

http://www.adn.com/24hour/business/story/3596459p-12867983c.html

 

Here's a 2nd article about "the email" with more comments from the engineering firm:

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070411/NEWS/704110362/1001/NEWS

The Scruggs group now has the Engineering firm email posted in this pdf but not the adjuster at this time:

http://www.scruggskatrinagroup.com/docs/randy_down_email.pdf