Mississsippi (1) Carriers (0)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
Login  | |
|
Mississsippi (1) Carriers (0) - 3/13/2006 2:13:21 PM
|
|
|
katadj
Posts: 692
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: New Hope, PA
Status: offline
|
Looks like more work for the ones still looking for it:
http://cms.nationalunderwriter.com/cms/nupc/Breaking%20News/2006/03/10-missflood-st
< Message edited by katadj -- 3/13/2006 5:51:25 PM >
_____________________________
"Excellence often first appears as error. It is only in retrospect that wisdom emerges from ignorance and success from failure." Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
RE: MIssisssippi (1) Carriers (0) - 3/13/2006 2:20:08 PM
|
|
|
RedSupraT
Posts: 274
Joined: 10/31/2004
Status: offline
|
Requires login & password.
What does it say?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: MIssisssippi (1) Carriers (0) - 3/13/2006 2:24:41 PM
|
|
|
cowboy26995
Posts: 94
Joined: 8/15/2004
Status: offline
|
In a setback for insurers, a federal judge has ruled that a state court should hear a suit brought by Mississippi over property-casualty insurers’ denial of hurricane claims based on flood exclusion policy language.
U.S. District Court Judge Tom S. Lee in Jackson, Miss., said that while there is “federal interest in the subject matter and outcome in the suit,” ultimately the issues remain state-oriented.
Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood filed the suit in an attempt to compel insurance companies to cover damage created by wind-driven storm surge.
Defendants in the case—State Farm, Nationwide, USAA, Allstate and the Mississippi Farm Bureau—sought to remove the case to federal court on the basis that the outcome would affect flood risk coverage provided by the federal government through the National Flood Insurance Plan.
David Reddick, senior state affairs manager for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, criticized the judge for failing to take into consideration the impact of the case “on the uniformity of federal flood insurance plan coverages in states susceptible to hurricanes and their resulting damage.”
The case will in all likelihood revert to Hinds County Chancery Court, where it was first filed last September in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, whose whipping winds created a storm surge that inundated Mississippi coastal areas, according to Mr. Reddick.
An estimated 40 percent of homeowners who suffered severe damage from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina did not have flood coverage, which since 1968 has been provided by the federal government.
The suit does not challenge the flood exclusion as such, but asserts that the wind-driven storm surge losses should not be excluded like those from traditional floods, or even the flooding that occurred in New Orleans resulting from the breach in the levees.
The insurance industry has vigorously contested the suit, asserting in the words of Institute of Insurance Information chief economist Robert Hartwig, “The flood exclusions are very broad and cover rising waters, regardless of the cause or circumstances.”
Back to Breaking News
Story Tools
 Email
 Print
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mississsippi (1) Carriers (0) - 3/14/2006 2:23:06 PM
|
|
|
katadj
Posts: 692
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: New Hope, PA
Status: offline
|
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/03/13/66416.htm
_____________________________
"Excellence often first appears as error. It is only in retrospect that wisdom emerges from ignorance and success from failure." Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mississippi (1) Carriers (0) - 3/31/2006 9:25:09 AM
|
|
|
katadj
Posts: 692
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: New Hope, PA
Status: offline
|
AND NOW.................................................
The MS AG says he wants then in JAIL.
Jackson 03/30/06
Scruggs: Insurance Co. Altered Documents
By Marsha Thompson
marsha@wlbt.net
There is a rising tide of court battles over Hurricane Katrina damage. Homeowners versus their insurance providers. Wind versus water. Now some "whistle-blowers" claim to have proof insurance companies altered damage reports to deny coverage.
August 29th...a storm with record tidal surge. Katrina blasted the scenic Mississippi Gulf Coast. 7 months later..blue roofs..white boxes... and a raging debate.Was it Katrina's violent winds or tsunami-like storm surge that decimated the coast? The language of hurricane insurance policies is being challanged in the courts. " This is a battle I don't want to fight." Richard Scruggs is a high-powered, enormously successful plaintiff's lawyer . He tells us, "The companies should have done the right thing." Scruggs is taking on insurance giants who refuse to pay up on claims. "It involves billions of dollars." Scruggs, who took on big tobacco companies also claims to have whistleblowers in this case. "The insiders are very highly placed..people within the company." Insurance insiders reportedly squealing on questionable policies. We asked Scruggs if he had proof. " Specifically have you seen altered documents?" His reply, "Yes."
We obtained copies of those conflicting engineering reports. That damage report was about a home destroyed 13 miles inland. A Kiln couple is suing State Farm . Terri Mullins says she and her husband are very upset. The first report in October concluded the cause of damage was due to hurricane force winds. But a second report emerges this January. The conclusion: minimal obvious wind damage consistent with rising water. William Mullins told us, " They flat out told us , you weren't supposed to get that first report and they acted almost appalled we had a copy and asked how we got it." State Farm used the second report and storm surge as the basis for not paying the Mullins claim. According to The Katrina Groups attorneys and Mr. Scruggs, "First report says wind, company doesn't like it, shred it deep six it..don't pay it..get a second report..by the same engineering from that says what the want it to say. The Director of the Insurance Information Institute, Bob Bailey told the Insurance Journal Daily Scruggs should quote "put up or shut up." He says insurance companies in question should, "insist on a subpoena in which Scruggs will have to come forward and not only name his whistleblower but bring him in."
Another coast couple is also crying foul. Their first engineering report blamed wind damage. Later a second report was issued. Gulfport homeowner, Dr. Hubert Smith's attorney talked about the second document issued. "It said the house was racked and severely damaged by storm surge, totally different." Their lawyer claims Rimkus Consuling altered documents and forged the inspectors signature on the storm surge report. A Rimkus official told us he has not received a copy of the lawsuit and could not comment. Meanwhile, the Gulfport homeowner said he did get an offer from his insurance carrier. "They did send me, excuse me, $9,000 to put on a $30,000 roof." $9000 on a half million dollar policy.
Insurance companies deny any form of deception. Investigators for the Attorney General are particularly interested seeking engineering reports as part of a criminal review. Attorney General Jim Hood said there is a specific statute addressing the matter. "The operative term is fraudulent denial of claims. And if the law is broken , Hood issued this warning. "Anybody involved, engineers adjusters will go to the pen. It's not going to be probation if I can send them to the pen."
Some call it a David and Goliath showdown, with the fabric of the gulf coast and billions of dollars at stake. State Farm and other insurers vehemently deny that they are liable for the damages caused by water. State Insurance Commissioner George Dale agrees. U.S. Senator Trent Lott, who lost his waterfront home says a congressional investigation is warranted.
if (document.layers) {document.write('\\'); document.close();}
coreAdsCreate('wnsz_40', 'loc', '100');
All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and WLBT, a Raycom Media Station.
_____________________________
"Excellence often first appears as error. It is only in retrospect that wisdom emerges from ignorance and success from failure." Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mississippi (1) Carriers (0) - 4/1/2006 8:24:04 AM
|
|
|
sbeau4014
Posts: 167
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Wherever The Wind Blows, USA
Status: offline
|
Don't believe everything you read in the newspaper, especially when it is only one sided and I note that that one side is a plaintiff attorney's side. I've dealt with way too many plaintiff attorney's in my life to believe very much of what they say without rock solid documentation to back it up. Not to say that shopping for an engineer's report in their favor is below insurance carriers as there are some out there that might do such a thing. this could be as simple as the adjuster going out, looking at the house and sending in a report that says that they feel that it might be wind damage that caused the damages, the carrier saying let's get an engineering report on causation, and the engineer's report comes back to say flood damage. A attorney can then declare to the world that the carrier had 2 reports in their file on causation, the 1st one being wind and the 2nd saying flood, they didn't the 1st so they got the second one to be able to deny the claim. Under the discovery rules, the insurance company carrier can get the information the plaintiff attorney plans to use in their case, and if the attorney has no proof of what he claimed in the media, I bet you won't read about it in the paper. This isn't the 1st attorney that will try his cases in the media before it hits the courtroom. Of course, what he said could be gospel and then the carrier has some serious problems that they brought on themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Mississippi (1) Carriers (0) - 4/1/2006 10:45:20 AM
|
|
|
Dimechimes
Posts: 256
Joined: 11/3/2005
Home base: Destin, FL and Franklin, TN
Status: offline
|
Having worked in claims and management for a large carrier 28 years, I find it extremely difficult to believe a carrier would have done such a thing as alleged in the media report. I can say with 100% confidence that the carrier I worked for would NEVER have done such a thing...NEVER...
|
|
|
|
!! You are viewing a post in the forum archive.
NOTICE: We are no longer using this forum for discussions. Please follow the links to the new forums.
Catastrophe Central-The Adjuster's Forum : Community Center- Forums
New Site Registration : New Site Login
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
User Agreement | Privacy Statement| Contact |Copyright 1995 - 2006 CatAdjuster.org. All rights reserved.
0.156
|
Printable Version
