RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm
|
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  | |
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/21/2005 12:40:41 AM
|
|
|
rainmaster
Posts: 52
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
|
This is a camp(cabin) on hwy 90 and that is a true story. I have no reason to doubt the person that this happened to. The camp is on 8 ft pilings, so it is way up. Made it through Betsy just fine. The point of my story is that in most cases it is not 'pure surge' but does have some wind damage assc. with it. It is my understanding that the wind did come before the storm surge. Even if it is some shingles and soffit for $1200, the insured has a right to damages. If the evidence(structure) is not there couldn't a settlement be proposed based on a statistical group consisting of structures that remained. Lott's Lawsuit is just wrong, but it is hard to blame him trying when there is so much unjustice on the other side. Realize I am not putting down the adjuster that is trying to do a good job. This is above us little folk in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/21/2005 1:03:03 AM
|
|
|
Elliott
Posts: 121
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
You're correct. Even the worst areas are not pure surge. There was roof damage, etc. caused by wind. That's how most claims are playing out around here, if the house is standing. In cases where the house is knocked clear off the pilings and is 300 yards away, in a heap, it's being claimed on flood only if it was in an area with surge. I know of no claims for those types of claims where HO paid. The insured still has to show proof of loss. How does one prove the house blew away before the surge washed it away? Lott has merit to his suit (although it is strictly for selfish reasons) Surge is a sketchy thing. It is only produced by a hurricane, which is covered under HO. It is not a rising river or and other normal cause of flooding. Remember, Lott is not the only one suing. There are class action suits being filed in La & Ms by many. Lott is just going to lead the crusdae. We are still a democracy, if enough people are speaking, and suing the levee will break. If Mississippi wins, Louisana will follow.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 5:39:31 PM
|
|
|
LarryW
Posts: 207
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Grand Bay, AL
Status: offline
|
Elliott, where does any policy say that a hurricane is a covered cause of loss?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 6:28:08 PM
|
|
|
Elliott
Posts: 121
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Larry-
Hurricane is considered a windstorm in actuality. Hence all the wind damage. Surge is caused by the wind pushing the water inward. In the particular area we are discussing, most have insurance which includes a specific hurricane endorsement in their policy. I'll be happy to send you a copy of my dec sheet/ policy. If I am wrong, please correct me Larry. If hurricane were not a covered cause of loss, would we all be working?
_____________________________
The only job where you start at the top, is digging a hole.
- unknown
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 8:04:19 PM
|
|
|
JimF
Posts: 1323
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline
|
HO-3 (04 91)
SECTION I - EXCLUSIONS
1. We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.
c. WATER DAMAGE, meaning:
(1) Flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind;
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 8:47:22 PM
|
|
|
olderthendirt
Posts: 570
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: homeless
Status: offline
|
Do the courts have room to find that all damage above the high water mark is wind? Can the insurance companies even win in Ms with all the political (at least from those politicians who didn't buy flood insurance) pressure that is available.
_____________________________
Still sliding down the razor blade of life
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 8:48:19 PM
|
|
|
Elliott
Posts: 121
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
this is why I'm still a lowly TOSA-1F. I'm hear to learn.
Regardless, the point of this thread is not to interpret current policy, but to gain perspective as to how policy might be changed if Lott wins. How can a company offer "hurricane" endorsements that do not cover all hurricane damage?
Who knows, it could also roll over into other coverage areas if he wins. I won't even pretend to know much about earthquake coverage, for example, but I would think flooding situations can arise from an earthquake. I would also assume subsequent flooding would not be covered?
_____________________________
The only job where you start at the top, is digging a hole.
- unknown
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 8:55:44 PM
|
|
|
Elliott
Posts: 121
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
That is indeed my question Dirt. It's not just Lott. He's just the superstar. There have been many class actions filed in LA & MS. No one thought the tobacco companies would lose either. When all is said and done, a lot of carriers will end up filing bankruptcy and pulling out of the gulf coast. At the end of the day, it won't sting as bad as you think. It will be another carrier's problem for future dispute. At least, that's my thoughts.
_____________________________
The only job where you start at the top, is digging a hole.
- unknown
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 9:17:25 PM
|
|
|
JGood
Posts: 76
Joined: 11/8/2005
Home base: Long Pine Nebraska
Status: offline
|
JimF said it best by simply quoting policy language. You will note he added no commentary, as none is needed to interpret the exclusion. That exclusion is spelled out in plain simple language. I know that our legal system sometimes leaves something to be desired, but in this case, the courts have no choice but to find in favor of the insurance companies on the issue of surge being flood.
However.... Elliot makes a good point that anything can happen and if it happens the policyholders in coastal areas will end up paying for it, one way or the other.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/22/2005 9:35:47 PM
|
|
|
ChuckDeaton
Posts: 182
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Little Rock, AR
Status: offline
|
In the Mississippi judicial system anything can and has happened. Dickie beat big tobacco in Mississippi and Dickie will beat big insurance at the trial court level.
_____________________________
Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/23/2005 2:56:52 PM
|
|
|
johnpostava
Posts: 170
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Orlando, FL
Status: offline
|
The flood policy covers ground water flooding from any source. If a fire hydrant on your corner gets run over by a car and the water enters the street and then your house (2 properties), NFIP picks up the tab and the HO policy pays nothing. If you have no flood policy, you are reaching into your pocket for repair costs and looking for the driver of that car (unless your HO company picks up the tab, probably under a non-waiver, and subrogates against the driver - sucessfully).
In Mississippi we now have the term "wind-driven-storm-surge"(wdss). Leave it to the lawyers and politicians to get creative with types of loss and policy coverages (and exclusions) after the fact. Thousands of folks were underinsured for flood and can be made "close to whole" if the homeowners policy kicks in. It will be interesting to see what happens. I feel for those folks (we handled many of their policy-limit flood claims.
Of course, if MS lawyers and polititions are able to convice a jury/judge that WDSS is a covered peril under an HO-3 policy, how will they explain to the million or so unaffected people of MS why there HO premiums double or triple in 200X to cover future WDSS's along the Gulf?
_____________________________
John A. Postava, R.P.A.
President
SIMSOL Software, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/23/2005 5:05:35 PM
|
|
|
LarryW
Posts: 207
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Grand Bay, AL
Status: offline
|
A MS state court court may indeed rule that the homeowners policy covers flood even though the policy says it is excluded, much like the TX courts ruled that where the policy says mold is excluded it really means that mold is covered. I wonder who had the last laugh with that ruling?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/23/2005 7:19:17 PM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
I,m not sure a Texas Court ever said mold was covered (the Ballard case, or others) the Ballard case was an unfair claims practice and deceptive trade practice. No mold testimony was introduced was my understanding.
I was the second adverse witness called by the plaintiff and set thru a 14 day trial and the next to last defense witness called. No medical testimony of deadly mold.
< Message edited by trader -- 12/23/2005 7:28:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/24/2005 7:45:11 AM
|
|
|
okclarryd
Posts: 616
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Oklahoma City, Ok
Status: offline
|
Back in the mold wars ................
The policy made no reference to "sudden and accidental" or "fortuitous loss" in Texas. Maintenance issues and coverage for the damages were the order of the day.
The downside ...........billions of dollars spent on damages.
The upside .......... we all stayed busy for a year or two.
_____________________________
LARRY D HARDIN
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/24/2005 8:43:11 AM
|
|
|
newtonclaimstim
Posts: 155
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline
|
That is very true Thank You Farmers. Good Luck
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/24/2005 3:58:14 PM
|
|
|
mh0825
Posts: 587
Joined: 8/31/2005
Home base: Gainesville, FL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elliott
How can a company offer "hurricane" endorsements that do not cover all hurricane damage?
Have you read one of these? These endorsements don't give coverage for "hurricanes". I will try to post one of these "hurricane endorsements" shortly.
You also stated hurricanes are considered a windstorm in actuality. I disagree with this. This is the mentality that has people feeling that flood should be covered under the HO policy. They think their policy states "hurricane coverage" and storm surges come with hurricanes. Wind is a covered peril, not hurricane.
< Message edited by mh0825 -- 12/24/2005 4:11:53 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/24/2005 8:33:12 PM
|
|
|
Big T
Posts: 104
Joined: 10/9/2004
Home base: Beaverton,Or
Status: offline
|
JimF's posting of the concurrent causation language shows just how clear and unambiguous the exclusion really is. So any argument about what is wind and what is flood when the building is totalled is meaningless in our context.
That doesn't mean some judge won't rule in favor of the homeowners. Since it's federal, I expect it to end up in Washington at the Supremes. That may take a few years
Imagine, doing Katrina claims in 2008!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 12/24/2005 9:06:45 PM
|
|
|
trader
Posts: 1203
Joined: 4/19/2004
Home base: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
The four corners of the contract "splains this to most who seek out the answers" please go to COVERAGE C-PERSONAL PROPERTY Number 2. Windstorm or hail. I believe most reasonable educated persons would think this includes Tornado and Hurricane under windstorm .
The Texas winstorm exclusion is very plain language, and ever person who lives in a county touching the Gulf Understands it very well.
< Message edited by trader -- 12/24/2005 9:23:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 1/9/2006 5:48:59 PM
|
|
|
Elliott
Posts: 121
Joined: 12/11/2005
Status: offline
|
Here's the latest off shoot of the Lott v State Farm issue
http://www.claimsguides.com/news/midwest/2006/01/06/63806.htm
quote:
But, Guise argues that the policy is worded so that all damage is covered unless it would have occurred "only" as a result of the tidal surge. Wind damage is a covered peril and since it contributed to the damage of the home it should be covered, the suit alleges.
_____________________________
The only job where you start at the top, is digging a hole.
- unknown
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Senator Lott vs: State farm - 1/9/2006 8:42:18 PM
|
|
|
kmerian
Posts: 55
Joined: 7/20/2005
Home base: San Antonio, Tx
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: okclarryd
Back in the mold wars ................
The policy made no reference to "sudden and accidental" or "fortuitous loss" in Texas. Maintenance issues and coverage for the damages were the order of the day.
The downside ...........billions of dollars spent on damages.
The upside .......... we all stayed busy for a year or two.
The MAJOR downside....State Farm and Allstate pulled out of the Texas Homeowners market for a while and now Texas has some of the highest homeowners rates in the country. All Lott needs is a handful of people on that jury who had a claim denied by an insurance company and they won't care what the policy says. One thing we have learned in Texas is that even if it is excluded under the policy, that doesn't matter a hill of beans when it goes to the jury.
|
|
|
|
!! 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.
0.328
|
Printable Version
