What does Chinese drywall and the insurance industry have in common? You can’t tell the stinkers based on outward appearance.
Accordingly to the majority of comments on this site, all builders are unethical scum who avoid responsibiltiy at every turn. I’m proud to work for a family-owned builder who has remediated over 70 homes built with Chinese drywall supplied by one of our subcontractors. Find me an insurance agent who would do the same if their E&O coverage proved to be as limiting as our CGL policy.
I don’t think the majority believe builders are unethical scum. We just see time after time the reinterpretation of an insurance policy by judges. It’s the mentality, well someone should pay and why not insurance companies even when it’s clear there is an exclusion. Just as a judge did in the Florida Panhandle after the 2003 Hurricane Mearzwa decision that ruled homeowners insurance would have to pay to rebuild homes stricken by flooding, because the homeowner did not have flood insurance. Someone should pay the homeowner. We see this time and time again in all forms of insurance from Home to General Liability to Work Comp. The courts finally ruled correctly. Of course it will be appealed and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will reverse the decision.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
What does Chinese drywall and the insurance industry have in common? You can’t tell the stinkers based on outward appearance.
Accordingly to the majority of comments on this site, all builders are unethical scum who avoid responsibiltiy at every turn. I’m proud to work for a family-owned builder who has remediated over 70 homes built with Chinese drywall supplied by one of our subcontractors. Find me an insurance agent who would do the same if their E&O coverage proved to be as limiting as our CGL policy.
I don’t think the majority believe builders are unethical scum. We just see time after time the reinterpretation of an insurance policy by judges. It’s the mentality, well someone should pay and why not insurance companies even when it’s clear there is an exclusion. Just as a judge did in the Florida Panhandle after the 2003 Hurricane Mearzwa decision that ruled homeowners insurance would have to pay to rebuild homes stricken by flooding, because the homeowner did not have flood insurance. Someone should pay the homeowner. We see this time and time again in all forms of insurance from Home to General Liability to Work Comp. The courts finally ruled correctly. Of course it will be appealed and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will reverse the decision.
It’s about time,, we won one….