Sam: I am baffled by your response. You wrote as follows:
This leads into the recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on VPL (Valued Policy Laws), which attorneys and policyholders have been using to rape carriers (ALL carriers) when there are concurrent causation issues. Is it OK for policyholders to get full value of the policy/property when the a portion of the loss was caused by a non-covered event even if the covered event did not total the property?
This suggests that the court has wrongly applied valued policy. But now you state the courts got it right. Where is the arguement? WE agree valued policy should not apply in this case and the court got it right. Lawyers daily file lawsuits for things they want but don’t get.
As far as answering your questions, I answered them fully. You misread my example as I used a simialr timeframe as occurred in the hurricane. The wind occurred duing the day and later that nite, the sinkhole occurred. The wind from the Hurican preceded the flood by several hours, same scenario.
Finally read my post. Engineers are GOD when they support the insurance industry and are not to be questioned. If they are so good, they can certainly determine raesonably how much wind damage occurred if they can “GUARANTEE” it was all flood water. The industry many times cuts off tehir nose to spite their face.
I can think of one more example of concurrent causation with flood. The Houston, TX floods of early 90’s when the oil piplne burst and the oil slick caught fire and burned the buildings from the flood line up. I think the oil company paid those claims though and let the carriers of the hook. The uncovered loss came first (flood) and then fire. Obviously the flood caused severe damage, but the homes could be built back. When the fire burnt the dwelling from flood line up, the buildings became non rebuildable from a covered loss. Should State Farm be able to tell the homeowners they will pay nothing in this scenario b/c of flood damage?
If the policy has concurrent causation language approved for use in that state by that state’s insurance department, then YES…the policyholder should not be paid.
I am very glad you have absolutely nothing to do with real policy, however, you must be a State Farm employee as you spout their line perectly. Do you understand the legal theory of “public policy” and not being able to go arbitrarily attempt to go against it? Do you not know that anything which can be construed as the least bit ambiguous is to be interpreted as being in the favor of the person who did NOT draw the contract? If you did not want the truth and the correct answer, why did you ask the question?
You asked a yes or no question; I gave you a yes or no answer. Your question did not refer to ambiguity, public policy, case law, precedent or other factors that vary by state & jurisdiction.
Do not presume to guess where I work, what experience I have in the industry or with policies. Your presumptions are wrong.
Posted On: August 9, 2007, 12:32 pm CDT
Posted By: Sam
Comment:
You asked a yes or no question; I gave you a yes or no answer. Your question did not refer to ambiguity, public policy, case law, precedent or other factors that vary by state & jurisdiction.
It is foolish to talk with someone that lives in a make believe world as do you. Our entire discussion is predicated upon our existence in the real world, so to act as though we live in your lala land where insurance carriers can abuse insureds at will, with no checks, is plain ole dumb.
It took me a while but I know fully know who and what you are.
Sam,don’t you just love Adjuster Jerk, as someone once named him? Sorry, I know I said I wouldn’t read his stuff any more, but his hate of State Farm is so intense and myopic that he is laughable. Anyone who comments on his personal subject is a State Farm sympathizer. His posts give me a comedy release every day. He says the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over, you get the idea. Sam, your balanced posts are intelligent and appreciated by me and probably all the others abused by Joe for the longest time. Ok, Joe, time to accuse Sam and me of evil intent.
Nobody, thanks for the compliments on my posts…I try to be reasoned and reasonably intelligent.
Joe, me thinks you have a bit of a politician in you. You talk out both sides of your mouth to support your opinion (yes, opinion). I read posts almost daily, and have previously posted with you. You do not seem to want to debate facts, because when facts support something in opposition to your opinion, you resort to personal attacks.
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.
Sam: I am baffled by your response. You wrote as follows:
This leads into the recent 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on VPL (Valued Policy Laws), which attorneys and policyholders have been using to rape carriers (ALL carriers) when there are concurrent causation issues. Is it OK for policyholders to get full value of the policy/property when the a portion of the loss was caused by a non-covered event even if the covered event did not total the property?
This suggests that the court has wrongly applied valued policy. But now you state the courts got it right. Where is the arguement? WE agree valued policy should not apply in this case and the court got it right. Lawyers daily file lawsuits for things they want but don’t get.
As far as answering your questions, I answered them fully. You misread my example as I used a simialr timeframe as occurred in the hurricane. The wind occurred duing the day and later that nite, the sinkhole occurred. The wind from the Hurican preceded the flood by several hours, same scenario.
Finally read my post. Engineers are GOD when they support the insurance industry and are not to be questioned. If they are so good, they can certainly determine raesonably how much wind damage occurred if they can “GUARANTEE” it was all flood water. The industry many times cuts off tehir nose to spite their face.
I can think of one more example of concurrent causation with flood. The Houston, TX floods of early 90’s when the oil piplne burst and the oil slick caught fire and burned the buildings from the flood line up. I think the oil company paid those claims though and let the carriers of the hook. The uncovered loss came first (flood) and then fire. Obviously the flood caused severe damage, but the homes could be built back. When the fire burnt the dwelling from flood line up, the buildings became non rebuildable from a covered loss. Should State Farm be able to tell the homeowners they will pay nothing in this scenario b/c of flood damage?
If the policy has concurrent causation language approved for use in that state by that state’s insurance department, then YES…the policyholder should not be paid.
I am very glad you have absolutely nothing to do with real policy, however, you must be a State Farm employee as you spout their line perectly. Do you understand the legal theory of “public policy” and not being able to go arbitrarily attempt to go against it? Do you not know that anything which can be construed as the least bit ambiguous is to be interpreted as being in the favor of the person who did NOT draw the contract? If you did not want the truth and the correct answer, why did you ask the question?
You asked a yes or no question; I gave you a yes or no answer. Your question did not refer to ambiguity, public policy, case law, precedent or other factors that vary by state & jurisdiction.
Do not presume to guess where I work, what experience I have in the industry or with policies. Your presumptions are wrong.
You are obviously one of the blind followers, with only one perspective.
Posted On: August 9, 2007, 12:32 pm CDT
Posted By: Sam
Comment:
You asked a yes or no question; I gave you a yes or no answer. Your question did not refer to ambiguity, public policy, case law, precedent or other factors that vary by state & jurisdiction.
It is foolish to talk with someone that lives in a make believe world as do you. Our entire discussion is predicated upon our existence in the real world, so to act as though we live in your lala land where insurance carriers can abuse insureds at will, with no checks, is plain ole dumb.
It took me a while but I know fully know who and what you are.
Sam,don’t you just love Adjuster Jerk, as someone once named him? Sorry, I know I said I wouldn’t read his stuff any more, but his hate of State Farm is so intense and myopic that he is laughable. Anyone who comments on his personal subject is a State Farm sympathizer. His posts give me a comedy release every day. He says the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over, you get the idea. Sam, your balanced posts are intelligent and appreciated by me and probably all the others abused by Joe for the longest time. Ok, Joe, time to accuse Sam and me of evil intent.
Nobody, thanks for the compliments on my posts…I try to be reasoned and reasonably intelligent.
Joe, me thinks you have a bit of a politician in you. You talk out both sides of your mouth to support your opinion (yes, opinion). I read posts almost daily, and have previously posted with you. You do not seem to want to debate facts, because when facts support something in opposition to your opinion, you resort to personal attacks.
Have a nice day. I’m outta here!
Sam:
Your response to the truth is a common one. “I have no answer for the truth so I will take my marbles and go home.”
When you have any facts on your side, please feel free to elucidate!