First off, the 98% stat is misleading. Bob Hartwig admitted in testimony that if the insurer said all the damage is excluded, that case is not counted as a claim at all, so it it not reflected in the stats. Those cases are in addition to the 2-5 % where the insurer acknowledges a claim but the amount is in dispute. Also of course, 98% not in court is not the same thing as 98% satisfied. Plenty of people did not sue but are not happy.
The percentage settled is an irrelevant stat anyway. There were hundreds of thousands of claims inland far beyond any surge flooding. No one ever said there was a problem with those. The problem was how State Farm and Allstate could pay hundreds of thousands of wind claims up to 150 miles inland and then claim that the winds on the coast were not strong enough to have caused damage before and during the surge. Homes that survived with a definite waterline got wind coverage for damage above the line, but homes that were destroyed got no wind payment from SF or Allstate. The insurer has the burden to proof to exclude. If the insurer can prove that all the damage was caused by flooding, then it should be excluded. If the insurer cannot prove that flooding caused all the damage, then it should not excluded.
I settled. Settled because Allstate threaten take this or nothing. I had flood insurance and homeowners insurance. I will be paying for a second mortgage for years now. I am settled but sure not satisfied.
This is all political driven. There is one polical party in our society that takes political advantage of whatever they can as that is the only way they can hope of winning. In this past, this party used to cater to the politics of race, but when people figured that out, they have to move on to finding other people to take advantage of. People in the Katrina damaged area and beyond have made out like bandits. In other words, their votes have been purchased by this very fraudulent party. Beware of who these policians are and tell them once and for all, quit these games, we have had it you!
It is unfortunate for you, Mary B, that you have not a clue. Brian, Good post. The truth hurts the feelings of the apologist – non insurance people here. The clerical staff of State Farm has been instructed to defend State Farm to the death here at IJ andother internet sites where the truth is being told.
The liberal media will do anything to slander insurance companies as to help advance their liberal agenda. Since when has Rush Limbaugh slandered insurance companies? You tell me?
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.
learn to read and become knowledgeable about the insurance industry before they post comments.
I agree with you Joe. And yes, you should.
Again, I am not sure of the point of your post because, as usual, you have no clue.
Please learn to speak english
First off, the 98% stat is misleading. Bob Hartwig admitted in testimony that if the insurer said all the damage is excluded, that case is not counted as a claim at all, so it it not reflected in the stats. Those cases are in addition to the 2-5 % where the insurer acknowledges a claim but the amount is in dispute. Also of course, 98% not in court is not the same thing as 98% satisfied. Plenty of people did not sue but are not happy.
The percentage settled is an irrelevant stat anyway. There were hundreds of thousands of claims inland far beyond any surge flooding. No one ever said there was a problem with those. The problem was how State Farm and Allstate could pay hundreds of thousands of wind claims up to 150 miles inland and then claim that the winds on the coast were not strong enough to have caused damage before and during the surge. Homes that survived with a definite waterline got wind coverage for damage above the line, but homes that were destroyed got no wind payment from SF or Allstate. The insurer has the burden to proof to exclude. If the insurer can prove that all the damage was caused by flooding, then it should be excluded. If the insurer cannot prove that flooding caused all the damage, then it should not excluded.
I settled. Settled because Allstate threaten take this or nothing. I had flood insurance and homeowners insurance. I will be paying for a second mortgage for years now. I am settled but sure not satisfied.
Adjusterjerk – maybe you should try some of your own advice…
And please take a continuing education class about sexaul harrassmentin the workplace.
This is all political driven. There is one polical party in our society that takes political advantage of whatever they can as that is the only way they can hope of winning. In this past, this party used to cater to the politics of race, but when people figured that out, they have to move on to finding other people to take advantage of. People in the Katrina damaged area and beyond have made out like bandits. In other words, their votes have been purchased by this very fraudulent party. Beware of who these policians are and tell them once and for all, quit these games, we have had it you!
It is unfortunate for you, Mary B, that you have not a clue. Brian, Good post. The truth hurts the feelings of the apologist – non insurance people here. The clerical staff of State Farm has been instructed to defend State Farm to the death here at IJ andother internet sites where the truth is being told.
Dirk, the politicalness of Katrina saw no ploitical lines. Both parties are guilty.
The liberal media will do anything to slander insurance companies as to help advance their liberal agenda. Since when has Rush Limbaugh slandered insurance companies? You tell me?