People like to blame us for everything that goes wrong rather we had anything to do with it or not. How many times have you had insureds who want to add coverage or lower deductibles after the fact?
I really have to wonder just how much $$$$$ Nationwide contributed to the Judges\’ re-election campaign fund or to the repairs of property owned by him or his relatives?????
Please read the judge\’s opinion. It is a \”quick read\”.
The couple\’s attorneys had asked for more than $158,000 for the damage to the house and its contents, plus interest and attorneys\’ fees and expenses. Senter, however, ruled that Nationwide only owed the Leonards about $1,228 more than what the company already has paid them for wind damage.
Both sides claimed victory in the wake of Senter\’s ruling.
\”The Leonards did not win as much money as I hoped they would have, but they won this case,\” said one of their attorneys, Richard \”Dickie\” Scruggs. \”It\’s always great to get a win in the first game of the season, whether it\’s by one point or 30 points.\”
Paul Leonard, a police lieutenant, acknowledged that an extra $1,228 only covers a fraction of the repair costs for his home, but he also considered Senter\’s ruling a victory.
As an agent, it is imperative that you present your products to the clients and the clients makes their own deciscion as to whether or not to pay a premium for coverage. If you live in an area that is known for wind and flood water damage potential why would not purchase flood insurance? Knowing the premiums would not be cheap but the peace of mind would have been worth the few thousand that the premiums would have cost them.
Case in point, in southern California when they had the October fires 3,000 homes were lost. Many had shake/wood roofs. Many homes were under insured. Is it not the responsibility of the homeowner to review their policies annually and to guard against potential fire hazards, i.e. 30 year hold shake roofs? As an agent when speaking with clients and counseling them on premium increases due to increased coverage many customers elected not to have that increased coverage and increased premium. That is not the fault of the agent. It\’s a buyer caveat and should be weighed heavily when deciding to under-insure yourself. Kudos to the judge for standing by the contract.
It will be interesting if Nationwide ever advertised Flood Insurance to their clients. I wonder if they have it in writing from their clients that they did not want to purchase the flood insurance coverage.
With all of the uproar about what policyholders think they have or need, it might be better to get a written rejection signed by the insured for all catastrophe covers like flood, earthquake, etc. As to be underinsured, CA requires companies to validate ITV periodically and so the burden isn\’t always just on the homeowner entirely. By the way, I agree with the decision in this case but the cost to the industry in terms of its reputation will suffer anyway.
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.
O.K. Bob but the carier had to spend a bundle on their defense. One more reason for reform, \”Loser pays\”.
People like to blame us for everything that goes wrong rather we had anything to do with it or not. How many times have you had insureds who want to add coverage or lower deductibles after the fact?
My sentiments exactly, Matt! The carrier and the agency are out a lot of $$$ too. Don\’t give me poor, poor defense attorney.
I really have to wonder just how much $$$$$ Nationwide contributed to the Judges\’ re-election campaign fund or to the repairs of property owned by him or his relatives?????
Please read the judge\’s opinion. It is a \”quick read\”.
The couple\’s attorneys had asked for more than $158,000 for the damage to the house and its contents, plus interest and attorneys\’ fees and expenses. Senter, however, ruled that Nationwide only owed the Leonards about $1,228 more than what the company already has paid them for wind damage.
Both sides claimed victory in the wake of Senter\’s ruling.
\”The Leonards did not win as much money as I hoped they would have, but they won this case,\” said one of their attorneys, Richard \”Dickie\” Scruggs. \”It\’s always great to get a win in the first game of the season, whether it\’s by one point or 30 points.\”
Paul Leonard, a police lieutenant, acknowledged that an extra $1,228 only covers a fraction of the repair costs for his home, but he also considered Senter\’s ruling a victory.
Where\’s honesty? People would do anything for even little extra $$$.
As an agent, it is imperative that you present your products to the clients and the clients makes their own deciscion as to whether or not to pay a premium for coverage. If you live in an area that is known for wind and flood water damage potential why would not purchase flood insurance? Knowing the premiums would not be cheap but the peace of mind would have been worth the few thousand that the premiums would have cost them.
Case in point, in southern California when they had the October fires 3,000 homes were lost. Many had shake/wood roofs. Many homes were under insured. Is it not the responsibility of the homeowner to review their policies annually and to guard against potential fire hazards, i.e. 30 year hold shake roofs? As an agent when speaking with clients and counseling them on premium increases due to increased coverage many customers elected not to have that increased coverage and increased premium. That is not the fault of the agent. It\’s a buyer caveat and should be weighed heavily when deciding to under-insure yourself. Kudos to the judge for standing by the contract.
It will be interesting if Nationwide ever advertised Flood Insurance to their clients. I wonder if they have it in writing from their clients that they did not want to purchase the flood insurance coverage.
We will see.
The plaintiffs may only get a few more dollars
but
the plaintiff attorney gets his fees…
That\’s why the plaintiff attorney is considering this a \”win\”…
With all of the uproar about what policyholders think they have or need, it might be better to get a written rejection signed by the insured for all catastrophe covers like flood, earthquake, etc. As to be underinsured, CA requires companies to validate ITV periodically and so the burden isn\’t always just on the homeowner entirely. By the way, I agree with the decision in this case but the cost to the industry in terms of its reputation will suffer anyway.