National News

Federal Judge in Mississippi 'Storm Surge' Case Upholds Home Insurance Flood Exclusion

A federal judge in Mississippi has upheld the water damage exclusion in homeowners insurance policies in a ruling welcomed by insurers.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. of the Southern District of Mississippi denied a motion by plaintiffs Elmer and Alexa Buente for partial summary judgment in their lawsuit against Allstate Insurance Company. The Buente v. Allstate case centers on the actual cause of damage to the Buentes' home during Hurricane Katrina.

The court was asked to decide whether the entry of water into the plaintiffs' home was within the language of the flood exclusions and found that it was.

The Buente's home was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina. They claimed that the damage to their home was caused in part by wind and wind driven rain and in part by rising water during the hurricane. The home was insured under a Deluxe Homeowners Policy issued by Allstate.

The policy contains an exclusion for damage attributable to inundation:
"We do not cover loss to the [insured] property consisting of or caused by: Flood, including, but not limited to surface water, waves, tidal water or overflow of any body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind. . . and water or any other substance on . . . the surface of the ground regardless of its source."

Plaintiffs claimed that these "flood exclusions" are ambiguous and are therefore unenforceable in the context of property damage sustained in Hurricane Katrina. They maintained that their property damage should be covered because it was a result of "storm surge." They contended that because the phenomenon of "storm surge" is not specifically listed as a peril excluded by the Allstate policy their water damage should be a covered loss.

But the court found that the flood exclusion language is clear and enforceable despite its not mentioning strom surge.

"Since the water that entered and damaged the plaintiffs' home was tidal water, I find that the damage caused by this inundation is excluded from coverage under the Allstate policy," wrote Judge Senter.

"The inundation that occurred during Hurricane Katrina was a flood, as that term is ordinarily understood, whether that term appears in a flood insurance policy or in a homeowners insurance policy. The exclusions found in the policy for damages attributable to flooding are valid and enforceable policy provisions. Indeed, similar policy terms have been enforced with respect to damage caused by high water associated with hurricanes in many reported decisions," he wrote.

Three national insurance trade organizations jointly filed an amicus brief in the case. The American Insurance Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America praised the ruling.

"In its ruling, the court held that the water damage exclusion in this policy is clear, unambiguous, 'drawn quite broadly' and with 'the clear purpose of excluding damage caused by inundation from coverage.' Citing numerous prior cases, the court concluded that, 'The exclusions found in the policy for damage attributable to flooding are valid and enforceable policy provisions," the groups said in a joint statement.

"The ourt clearly is putting to rest the trial bar's unfounded argument in this and other cases that 'wind-driven water' or 'storm surge' is not covered by plain-language exclusions. Fortunately for all Mississippians, this ruling upholds the integrity of contracts in the state, and is further evidence that misinformed statements by plaintiffs' attorneys regarding long-settled homeowners policy language are meaningless in a court of law," the insurer groups claimed.

"This and similar rulings are the essential underpinnings for a rebuilt Gulf Coast, because such decisions retain the predictability and certainty that all businesses - including insurers - rely upon when deciding where to commit resources, such as capital and jobs," concluded the three trade groups.

Comments? Click here to post a comment about this article

Subject Posted By Posted On
JAMES... RE: Good Hands...My ***- Justice 4 All
Nov 1, 2006, 1:59 am
RE: Good Hands...My ***- James
Nov 1, 2006, 12:50 am
Good Hands...My ***- Justice 4 All
Oct 8, 2006, 1:33 am
RE: Is it legal for a GC to charge OH/Profit on an Ins Premi Roger Poe
Oct 6, 2006, 1:11 pm
Is it legal for a GC to charge OH/Profit on an Ins Premium? Mike
Jun 1, 2006, 12:13 pm
To NKN - Tony - Commenting Is Archived...Forever Roger Poe
May 19, 2006, 12:00 pm
NKN and Tony. Please note, I'm not Martha Kirwin. ClaimHawk
May 19, 2006, 8:10 am
RE: RE: Insurers and adjusters are playing with consumers. Tony
May 18, 2006, 10:25 pm
RE: Charles - Some Records That May Help You And Others Tony
May 18, 2006, 10:19 pm
RE: RE: Insurers and adjusters are playing with consumers. Tony
May 18, 2006, 10:05 pm
RE: Insurers and adjusters are playing with consumers. NKN
May 18, 2006, 9:57 pm
Charles - Some Records That May Help You And Others Roger Poe
May 18, 2006, 8:15 pm
RE: Insurers and adjusters are "abusing" claiments. Charles
May 18, 2006, 6:49 pm
Market Conduct Check List For Allstate-Travelers-State Farm Roger Poe
May 18, 2006, 6:25 pm
RE: Insurers and adjusters are playing with consumers. Roger Poe
May 18, 2006, 5:18 pm
Insurers and adjusters are playing with consumers. ClaimHawk
May 18, 2006, 3:57 pm
RE: RE: Tony - Have You Ever Owned A Construction Business? Tony
May 18, 2006, 1:25 am
RE: Tony - Have You Ever Owned A Construction Business? Roger Poe
May 17, 2006, 6:43 pm
RE: Tony - Have You Ever Owned A Construction Business? Tony
May 17, 2006, 4:55 pm
Tony - Have You Ever Owned A Construction Business? Roger Poe
May 17, 2006, 3:43 pm
RE: Tony - Honorable Insurers-Adjusters Know What Is Truely Tony
May 17, 2006, 2:50 pm
Tony - Honorable Insurers-Adjusters Know What Is Truely Fair Roger Poe
May 17, 2006, 12:40 am
RE: True Replacement Costs Depreciated = ACV Mark H
May 16, 2006, 8:35 pm
RE: Mark H - True Replacement Costs Depreciated = ACV Tony
May 16, 2006, 6:59 pm
RE: RE: Tony - Insurers DO Underpay Claims...In Many Ways Tony
May 16, 2006, 6:28 pm
Mark H - True Replacement Costs Depreciated = ACV Roger Poe
May 16, 2006, 6:22 pm
RE: Tony - Insurers DO Underpay Claims...In Many Ways Mark H
May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Every Claim' Martha Kirwin
May 7, 2006, 5:53 pm
Tony - Insurers DO Underpay Claims...In Many Ways Roger Poe
Apr 29, 2006, 8:41 pm
RE: To Tony-From Roger Poe - Partial Facts & False Impressio Tony
Apr 28, 2006, 8:58 pm
To Tony-From Roger Poe - Partial Facts & False Impressions Roger Poe
Apr 28, 2006, 8:17 am
RE: To Mark H- We can afford to pay above the water line + Tony
Apr 28, 2006, 12:55 am
RE: Thanks, Tony Tony
Apr 28, 2006, 12:44 am
Thanks, Tony Charles
Apr 27, 2006, 11:22 pm
To Mark H- We can afford to pay above the water line + Katrina Survivor
Apr 27, 2006, 2:13 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: KUDOs to Roger & Survivor - To Mark Tony
Apr 21, 2006, 6:02 pm
RE: RE: RE: RE: KUDOs to Roger & Survivor - To Mark Charles
Apr 21, 2006, 5:31 pm
RE: RE: RE: KUDOs to Roger & Survivor - To Mark Mark H
Apr 21, 2006, 1:18 pm
RE: RE: KUDOs to Roger & Survivor - To Mark Roger Poe
Apr 19, 2006, 1:17 pm
RE: RE: GOOD HANDS...MY ***! To -Ed Yukashun Roger Poe
Apr 19, 2006, 12:31 pm
RE: QUESTION ON FLOOD - Questions... Roger Poe
Apr 19, 2006, 12:19 pm
RE: KUDOs to Roger & Survivor Mark H
Apr 19, 2006, 7:46 am
KUDOs to Roger & Survivor Mrs. LB
Apr 19, 2006, 3:12 am
RE: GOOD HANDS...MY ***! Ed Yukashun
Apr 18, 2006, 5:40 pm
GOOD HANDS...MY ***! Katrina Survivor
Apr 18, 2006, 4:26 pm
RE: RE: RE: Roger Poe/Allstate Mark
Apr 18, 2006, 12:30 pm
RE: RE: Roger Poe/Allstate "pulling out" of FLA Charles
Apr 18, 2006, 10:23 am
RE: Roger Poe Gloria
Apr 18, 2006, 3:13 am
Roger Poe Mark
Apr 17, 2006, 8:22 pm
RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Every Claim' Charles
Apr 17, 2006, 8:15 pm
QUESTION ON FLOOD Hal
Apr 17, 2006, 7:07 pm
RE: To Southern Agent - From Roger Poe Roger Poe
Apr 17, 2006, 4:43 pm
To Roger Southern Agent
Apr 17, 2006, 2:58 pm
RE: Roger Poe - To Jay Roger Poe
Apr 17, 2006, 10:07 am
RE: RE: Rodger -To Hal & Mark H Hal
Apr 17, 2006, 9:41 am
RE: Rodger -To Hal & Mark H Roger Poe
Apr 17, 2006, 9:20 am
Roger Poe jay
Apr 17, 2006, 8:50 am
RE: RE: Rodger - From Roger Poe Mark H
Apr 15, 2006, 5:04 pm
RE: Rodger - From Roger Poe Roger Poe
Apr 15, 2006, 10:43 am
Rodger Bob
Apr 15, 2006, 7:36 am
RE: RE: po po roger Mark H
Apr 14, 2006, 7:12 pm
RE: po po roger semper gumby (always flexible)
Apr 14, 2006, 3:41 pm
RE: Did they pay for wind? D
Apr 14, 2006, 3:29 pm
Did they pay for wind? Jim
Apr 14, 2006, 2:05 pm
quit pickin' on Roger Fore Tune Teller
Apr 14, 2006, 1:41 pm
RE: RE: Allstate ruling (and Roger P.) Mark H
Apr 14, 2006, 1:31 pm
A win for the good guys! Oklahoma Agent
Apr 14, 2006, 1:19 pm
RE: Allstate ruling Hal
Apr 14, 2006, 1:13 pm
Allstate ruling insray
Apr 14, 2006, 1:06 pm
counsel Dr. Men Tal
Apr 14, 2006, 10:12 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpa Mark
Apr 14, 2006, 10:07 am
RE: RE: RE: RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Ev Bob
Apr 14, 2006, 9:48 am
RE: RE: RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Every Hal
Apr 14, 2006, 8:59 am
RE: RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Every Clai Andy
Apr 14, 2006, 8:30 am
RE: Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Every Claim' Jay
Apr 14, 2006, 7:35 am
Allstate Insider -AS 'Knowingly Underpay Every Claim' Roger Poe
Apr 13, 2006, 9:29 pm