Based upon this logic, fires caused by an intentional act, war or a nuclear explosion should be covered. The decision was idiotic and contains no logic.The suicide or military act exclusion in life insurance should not have any effect on our soldiers in Iraq. Health insurance policies can not exclude losses caused by utilization of drugs or narcotics. Auto insurance can not exclude road rage as an intentional loss. After all, a collision caused the damage.
You are way off on this one. We are lamenting this ruling because what\’s the use of exclusions in a polcy when they are not enforced or when they are disregarded (as in this case). I say include flood coverage on these policies and then exorbitantly increase their premium.
GG is right, the concept of insurance (hello all you CPCU\’s out there) is and always was to make you whole, not provide you with a gain.
Public Adjuster…You are right that ambiguities should be determined in the favor of the insured as an HO form is a contract of adhesion. However, you fail to realize the contract was NOT ambigious…it CLEARLY excludes FLOOD.
If the courts continue to confuse the coverages, then property rates will have to contemplate \”all risks\” and the average Joe or Jane could not afford to live in FL or southern LA AND have insurance.
Good for that judge and the jury. State Farm oppresses both first and third party claimants on a routine basis. More to come on this–those two adjuster sisters and the misconduct regarding engineering reports as seen on 60 Minutes–unless State Farm acts to end trials and cover up their evil ways (again).
Mutual companies–self-perpetuating hierarchies accountable to no one except the occasional federal judge and fairness-minded jury. Isn\’t the current head of State Farm the son of the former head? What a coincidence. Must have superb management genes.
Must be one of them lib\’rul activist judges, eh? Thank goodness.
GG you show your ignorance and make my point. We can all assume what may have happened but what actual facts were presented by SF to the Jury. I can\’t tell you how many claims I\’ve been involved in that were denied before I became involved by poorly trained and overworked claims personnel. My involvement however overturned the denial.
If you were an insurer, how long would you continue to write coverage on structures in this kind of legal atmosphere. 2008 will be the year of the disappearing coverage in Mississippi.
What we need is a federal catastrophe policy which includes flood, wind and quake. Take the wind and flood totally out of the HO policy and then it would not matter. In a hurricane it is likely you are going to have damage from both the wind and the water. Then if the insured did not purchase this policy it would be too bad so sad. Of course, the attorneys would lobby against this because they would not have any law suits to bring forth.
Hey inside looking out, I agree the contract is clear however the facts and circumstances surrounding this loss as presented to the Jury were not! Unless you had a camera rolling when this occurred you can only guess and what peril occurred first.
This ruling is good for the policyholder but very bad for the industry. The problem is that the mass catastrophy situation needs to be handled differently as a state/country not put all the burden on neither the policy holder through astronomical rates nor on the insurance company with billions in losses. Soon no one in their right mind will want to (be able to afford) offer insurance in coastal areas. It is also not fair for those not living in coastal flood areas to absorb the costs of the rich people living near the coast. Politicians need to do their homework and resolve this critical issue for everybody.
Not all people living in coastal communities are rich. The issue is not just Mississippi – but all coastal areas now need to be concerned. Those in the states with coastal areas need to keep in mind the issue of carriers leaving the entire state due to legal issues. The unavailability of insurance will be an issue shared by more than \’coastal\’ residents. Keep in mind, too, that other disasters happen in other states. We need to remember that we are one county and need to help people – but we do need to do this with punitive awards like this as all will suffer. I agree – a national program with Flood, wind, quake, terrorism is needed. Tax $$ would be saved if we find a more proactive approach rather than responding afterward. Some have made a lot of money due to the misfortune of so many others. We need to come together as a county.
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.
Based upon this logic, fires caused by an intentional act, war or a nuclear explosion should be covered. The decision was idiotic and contains no logic.The suicide or military act exclusion in life insurance should not have any effect on our soldiers in Iraq. Health insurance policies can not exclude losses caused by utilization of drugs or narcotics. Auto insurance can not exclude road rage as an intentional loss. After all, a collision caused the damage.
You are way off on this one. We are lamenting this ruling because what\’s the use of exclusions in a polcy when they are not enforced or when they are disregarded (as in this case). I say include flood coverage on these policies and then exorbitantly increase their premium.
GG is right, the concept of insurance (hello all you CPCU\’s out there) is and always was to make you whole, not provide you with a gain.
Public Adjuster…You are right that ambiguities should be determined in the favor of the insured as an HO form is a contract of adhesion. However, you fail to realize the contract was NOT ambigious…it CLEARLY excludes FLOOD.
If the courts continue to confuse the coverages, then property rates will have to contemplate \”all risks\” and the average Joe or Jane could not afford to live in FL or southern LA AND have insurance.
It\’s up to you!!!
Good for that judge and the jury. State Farm oppresses both first and third party claimants on a routine basis. More to come on this–those two adjuster sisters and the misconduct regarding engineering reports as seen on 60 Minutes–unless State Farm acts to end trials and cover up their evil ways (again).
Mutual companies–self-perpetuating hierarchies accountable to no one except the occasional federal judge and fairness-minded jury. Isn\’t the current head of State Farm the son of the former head? What a coincidence. Must have superb management genes.
Must be one of them lib\’rul activist judges, eh? Thank goodness.
GG you show your ignorance and make my point. We can all assume what may have happened but what actual facts were presented by SF to the Jury. I can\’t tell you how many claims I\’ve been involved in that were denied before I became involved by poorly trained and overworked claims personnel. My involvement however overturned the denial.
If you were an insurer, how long would you continue to write coverage on structures in this kind of legal atmosphere. 2008 will be the year of the disappearing coverage in Mississippi.
What we need is a federal catastrophe policy which includes flood, wind and quake. Take the wind and flood totally out of the HO policy and then it would not matter. In a hurricane it is likely you are going to have damage from both the wind and the water. Then if the insured did not purchase this policy it would be too bad so sad. Of course, the attorneys would lobby against this because they would not have any law suits to bring forth.
The punitive damage award is very disappointing.
Hey inside looking out, I agree the contract is clear however the facts and circumstances surrounding this loss as presented to the Jury were not! Unless you had a camera rolling when this occurred you can only guess and what peril occurred first.
This ruling is good for the policyholder but very bad for the industry. The problem is that the mass catastrophy situation needs to be handled differently as a state/country not put all the burden on neither the policy holder through astronomical rates nor on the insurance company with billions in losses. Soon no one in their right mind will want to (be able to afford) offer insurance in coastal areas. It is also not fair for those not living in coastal flood areas to absorb the costs of the rich people living near the coast. Politicians need to do their homework and resolve this critical issue for everybody.
Not all people living in coastal communities are rich. The issue is not just Mississippi – but all coastal areas now need to be concerned. Those in the states with coastal areas need to keep in mind the issue of carriers leaving the entire state due to legal issues. The unavailability of insurance will be an issue shared by more than \’coastal\’ residents. Keep in mind, too, that other disasters happen in other states. We need to remember that we are one county and need to help people – but we do need to do this with punitive awards like this as all will suffer. I agree – a national program with Flood, wind, quake, terrorism is needed. Tax $$ would be saved if we find a more proactive approach rather than responding afterward. Some have made a lot of money due to the misfortune of so many others. We need to come together as a county.