In my opinion homeowner insurance rates have always been too low everywhere in the country. Your typical car policy is about one tenth the value of the fully covered auto with various factors making it more or less. Yet on a $500,000 home in California you can get a good homeowner policy for $450-$700. In my opinion the average rate for a property such as this should be $4,700-$7,000. Which is still only about 1%? This way everything is covered and people too dumb to understand simple contract language won\’t be able to afford the insurance in the first place.
Rich,
I agree with you. I didn\’t mean to say that all people near the coast are rich. My point is that there has to be a program that uses common sense from all sides (insurance companies and insured). We all know that insurance companies have to make a profit to stay in business but people can\’t continue to ever higher premiums. Where is the balance (common sense)? Perhaps a system that caps the losses and claims or a combined system of private and government insurance needs to be in place. What this is all coming to is the realization the due to climate change or whatever some areas are seeing drastic weather causing much damage. One will have to ask if it is worth living in these areas anymore and if you chose to do so then you may have to realize that there won\’t be insurance to cover your dwelling should a major catastrophe come your way. We all know that there is a limited amount of money and the needs could quickly become unlimited in a major disaster. No company nor any government can cope with that or be expected to pay everybody what they lost. This is a mindset shift that we need to make. We have been spoiled for the last 4 decades but mother nature is changing the rules on us.
come on! The punitive damages were not the fault of the flood surge or the wind. The punitive damages were because the company State Farm in this case did not do its work properly. the cause of loss was aparently determined to be other than flood by the court or the exclusion would be valid.
The companies must be proactive in settling claims and documenting the denials or they will continue to get hammered
The judge\’s ruling in this case hangs on his misunderstanding of the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. This clause is not intended to, nor is it use to deny coverage for a wind damaged roof when one inch of water floods the home. The wind damaged roof is covered, the flooded carpet is not. The Judge’s opinion is that the anti-concurrent causation clause is used to exclude coverage for the wind damaged roof, also. He is wrong.
When you have a widow broken by flying debris (wind damage) but the storm surge rolls in and floods the house to the roofline, there is no longer coverage for the broken window. Why? Because when I get to the house after the storm has passed and it is clearly evident that storm surge flooded the house to the roofline, there is no possible way to determine what happened to that window. I don’t care if the insured was standing in the front yard and video taped the whole hurricane, even the tree limb breaking the window, when the surge rolls in, it ain’t covered.
To avoid the “he said it was wind, she said it was water” and all the litigation that always went along with it, policies were revised to include anti-concurrent causation clauses. It does not matter if a tornado or gale force winds blew the Broussard’s house down, when the storm surge washed it all into a pile in the back yard, it was no longer a covered loss.
You think you have it tough now, just wait until you can’t get insurance, or a home loan! Good-bye Mississippi!
Politicians need to keep their dirty little hands out of the insurance business. They created the NFIP and look at how well that works. Homeowner\’s policy STILL paying for flood damage!
Health insurance is another mess politicians gave us. What? You didn\’t know that the high price of health insurance is due to the mandates state governments put on health insurers!
\”You want to sell health insurance in this state? Well, you have to cover routine doctor visits, and well care, etc. No, you can\’t offer a simple major medical policy. We don\’t think that would be fair.\”
I see a lot of good points here, and they could be argued all day. As a non high risk homeowner I just have one point. Far to often developers build on land that should never EVER be built on. They develop, and buyers buy, knowing the risk, for one reason. They feel the insurance company, legal system, and or government will bail them out when they get hurt on the deal. Once again this court proved them right. The point I would like to make is I no longer want to pay for these peoples lack of ability to live in the real world. If you build a house on the side of a cliff in Calif it could easily slide down. I say to you insurance people don\’t raise the rates avoid the risk. This case proves you can\’t exclude it 100%. Don\’t let the perfume of the premium cloud the stench of the risk. We will all be better off.
This argument is a big contradiction. On one hand some of you don\’t want the government involved (i.e. politicians) and want the free market to balance allowing businesses to make the most profit, but at the same time you want the government and all other citizens to bail everybody out (companies and insured) when a catastrophe occurs. Make up your mind because we can\’t have it both ways! This is the same old dilemma of taxes and roads. You want good roads to drive your expensive SUV but don\’t want to pay taxes to let the gov build the roads. Is is simply math people! No free lunch!
The main point in all of this, it\’s yet another glaring example of the US Judicial system out of control. Contracts of all types, not just insurance, are NOT being upheld by the courts in this country, with emotions and sympathy for the victims being the only factors involved. Likewise, goes the court of public opinion.
I\’m curious how SF settled claims where there was flood ins. The anti-current causation clause does not exclude wind damage because there is also water damage according to a technical advisory issued by the LA agents assoc. TA252 05/22/06
In a hurricane, unless there is proof to the contrary, it\’s hard to believe that there wasn\’t some wind damage which would have been covered by the homeowners policy.
Seems like SF should have paid some portion and it\’s my bet that they do pay a percentage when there is flood ins in place.
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.
Before anyone jumps – we DO NOT need to do this with Punitive Damage Awards. What a type.
In my opinion homeowner insurance rates have always been too low everywhere in the country. Your typical car policy is about one tenth the value of the fully covered auto with various factors making it more or less. Yet on a $500,000 home in California you can get a good homeowner policy for $450-$700. In my opinion the average rate for a property such as this should be $4,700-$7,000. Which is still only about 1%? This way everything is covered and people too dumb to understand simple contract language won\’t be able to afford the insurance in the first place.
Rich,
I agree with you. I didn\’t mean to say that all people near the coast are rich. My point is that there has to be a program that uses common sense from all sides (insurance companies and insured). We all know that insurance companies have to make a profit to stay in business but people can\’t continue to ever higher premiums. Where is the balance (common sense)? Perhaps a system that caps the losses and claims or a combined system of private and government insurance needs to be in place. What this is all coming to is the realization the due to climate change or whatever some areas are seeing drastic weather causing much damage. One will have to ask if it is worth living in these areas anymore and if you chose to do so then you may have to realize that there won\’t be insurance to cover your dwelling should a major catastrophe come your way. We all know that there is a limited amount of money and the needs could quickly become unlimited in a major disaster. No company nor any government can cope with that or be expected to pay everybody what they lost. This is a mindset shift that we need to make. We have been spoiled for the last 4 decades but mother nature is changing the rules on us.
come on! The punitive damages were not the fault of the flood surge or the wind. The punitive damages were because the company State Farm in this case did not do its work properly. the cause of loss was aparently determined to be other than flood by the court or the exclusion would be valid.
The companies must be proactive in settling claims and documenting the denials or they will continue to get hammered
The judge\’s ruling in this case hangs on his misunderstanding of the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. This clause is not intended to, nor is it use to deny coverage for a wind damaged roof when one inch of water floods the home. The wind damaged roof is covered, the flooded carpet is not. The Judge’s opinion is that the anti-concurrent causation clause is used to exclude coverage for the wind damaged roof, also. He is wrong.
When you have a widow broken by flying debris (wind damage) but the storm surge rolls in and floods the house to the roofline, there is no longer coverage for the broken window. Why? Because when I get to the house after the storm has passed and it is clearly evident that storm surge flooded the house to the roofline, there is no possible way to determine what happened to that window. I don’t care if the insured was standing in the front yard and video taped the whole hurricane, even the tree limb breaking the window, when the surge rolls in, it ain’t covered.
To avoid the “he said it was wind, she said it was water” and all the litigation that always went along with it, policies were revised to include anti-concurrent causation clauses. It does not matter if a tornado or gale force winds blew the Broussard’s house down, when the storm surge washed it all into a pile in the back yard, it was no longer a covered loss.
You think you have it tough now, just wait until you can’t get insurance, or a home loan! Good-bye Mississippi!
Marty,
Politicians need to keep their dirty little hands out of the insurance business. They created the NFIP and look at how well that works. Homeowner\’s policy STILL paying for flood damage!
Health insurance is another mess politicians gave us. What? You didn\’t know that the high price of health insurance is due to the mandates state governments put on health insurers!
\”You want to sell health insurance in this state? Well, you have to cover routine doctor visits, and well care, etc. No, you can\’t offer a simple major medical policy. We don\’t think that would be fair.\”
What a crock! Politicians fix something. HA!
I see a lot of good points here, and they could be argued all day. As a non high risk homeowner I just have one point. Far to often developers build on land that should never EVER be built on. They develop, and buyers buy, knowing the risk, for one reason. They feel the insurance company, legal system, and or government will bail them out when they get hurt on the deal. Once again this court proved them right. The point I would like to make is I no longer want to pay for these peoples lack of ability to live in the real world. If you build a house on the side of a cliff in Calif it could easily slide down. I say to you insurance people don\’t raise the rates avoid the risk. This case proves you can\’t exclude it 100%. Don\’t let the perfume of the premium cloud the stench of the risk. We will all be better off.
This argument is a big contradiction. On one hand some of you don\’t want the government involved (i.e. politicians) and want the free market to balance allowing businesses to make the most profit, but at the same time you want the government and all other citizens to bail everybody out (companies and insured) when a catastrophe occurs. Make up your mind because we can\’t have it both ways! This is the same old dilemma of taxes and roads. You want good roads to drive your expensive SUV but don\’t want to pay taxes to let the gov build the roads. Is is simply math people! No free lunch!
The main point in all of this, it\’s yet another glaring example of the US Judicial system out of control. Contracts of all types, not just insurance, are NOT being upheld by the courts in this country, with emotions and sympathy for the victims being the only factors involved. Likewise, goes the court of public opinion.
I\’m curious how SF settled claims where there was flood ins. The anti-current causation clause does not exclude wind damage because there is also water damage according to a technical advisory issued by the LA agents assoc. TA252 05/22/06
In a hurricane, unless there is proof to the contrary, it\’s hard to believe that there wasn\’t some wind damage which would have been covered by the homeowners policy.
Seems like SF should have paid some portion and it\’s my bet that they do pay a percentage when there is flood ins in place.