You two guys obviously are on the denying side of claims irrelavent of what a court rules in favor of or not.
Hauling in engineers to determine evidence to deny coverage of a loss is a last ditch effort to deny what is rightfully owed on large payouts.
An (insured) is entitled to fair and equitable settlement based on the declarations within the policy in a reasonable amount of time.
The insured either buys more coverage than they need if they can afford it or they buy just enough to cover them if they are devastated.These are the people that are denied coverage the most.
I don’t see any agents saying to an potential client that they shouldn’t buy a house in this area. It is prone to flooding,hurricanes,snow,hail or whatever may be the case.No you sell them a policy and when it comes time to collect on it you give them a song and dance of how this and that is not covered.
An insurance policy is or was considered a contract of utmost good faith.Has that changed? This is obviously not the case anymore based on Sam and Nobody’s statements.
Please let me know so that I can go to my agency and cough over some more money for some high positioned person or agent working on commission to line their pockets more so.
I’ve always said an insurance policy doesn’t tell you what it covers only what it doesn’t.
What adjuster joe keeps saying to you is right on the money and YOU guys don’t want to accept the reality of it.
Instead you turn rude and unprovoked comments and insults.
If SF tries to screw the policy holder obviously they will win by hiring people to represent their cause after all they’ve taken the average persons money for premium payment.The average person doesn’t have the time or the money to fight large companies in court.
It’s good thing people like adjuster joe and myself are around to help try and resolve a claim fairly otherwise more people would be screwed.
Again,the insurance company should pay what’s owed nothing more nothing less.
Sam – just give up on adjusterjerk. The old coot is a total loser and a nutter. I also need to add that the guy is a serial sexual harrasser. This “man” lives with blinders on his eyes and ears and can not and will not listen to anything anyone has to say UNLESS it is in 100% agreement with his thoughts and opinions. Joe always seems to offer nothing and add irrelevance to any topic/discussion/post/etc. Sam, now watch adjusterjerk come on here and talk bad about me cause I am a woman. He does it all the time to all women on this site.
Your LIES and PERSONAL ATTACKS get old. I have never personally attacked you or anyone else. I have never accused you or anyone else of being a child molesterer as you do me. The sole reason you and/or Jewel are part of any discussion due to your total and complete ignorance of insurance and nothing else.
It seems obvious to me that chrome and adjusterjoe are public adjusters. That would explain their hatred of State Farm and other large carriers.
Don’t they make a living by trying to increase the amount of a claim to cover their 10% to 15% commisions? Maybe I’m wrong.
I handle claims based on the policy language, state law, and the damage present. I do not handle claims based on how I think a court will interpret the policy if the insured sues.
Wrong. Not a public adjuster. If you do not use jurisprudence in your deliberations then you end up, as does State Farm, with bad faith suits out the wazoo. I have zero bad faith claims in my career. You must have many annually.
My living comes directly from the insurance industry. I do not hate the industry. I do have a distrust for State Farm as they have exhibited a proclivity to abuse their insureds and in the casualty market they routinely deny and refuse to investigate legitimate claims. State Fram is responsible for more anti-insurance industry case law than all other companies combined.
Thank you Mark for pointing out the purpose of the policy. Pay what is owed.
Chrome, you are making assumptions about me, just as Joe did. Please don’t. You are wrong.
I do not purposely set out and look for a way to deny coverage for any claim. I look for every way possible to provide coverage to the policyholder based on the policy language. Sometimes, there is no coverage. If there is a dispute about the policy language, I look to case law AND seek the opinion of coverage counsel in that jurisdiction. I, like Mark, pay what is owed under the policy and have NEVER blindly denied a claim as suggested by a few posters. Nor have I ever hired an engineer to look for a way to deny coverage, nor encouraged an engineer or other expert to fabricate evidence.
Joe, I have provided several facts, cases and articles to you that dispute your position. Instead of continuing what is a futile argument with you, I chose to discontinue posting. You accused me of ‘taking my marbles and going home’. Well, that is my prerogative.
You may want to read the entire 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion regarding the various issues on which Nationwide appealed. It’s not perfect, but it does overturn Judge Senter’s ruling on Nationwide’s anti-concurrent causation clause.
Here is a link to David Rossmiller’s blog, which has links to the AP story and the actual opinion in PDF format.
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.
You two guys obviously are on the denying side of claims irrelavent of what a court rules in favor of or not.
Hauling in engineers to determine evidence to deny coverage of a loss is a last ditch effort to deny what is rightfully owed on large payouts.
An (insured) is entitled to fair and equitable settlement based on the declarations within the policy in a reasonable amount of time.
The insured either buys more coverage than they need if they can afford it or they buy just enough to cover them if they are devastated.These are the people that are denied coverage the most.
I don’t see any agents saying to an potential client that they shouldn’t buy a house in this area. It is prone to flooding,hurricanes,snow,hail or whatever may be the case.No you sell them a policy and when it comes time to collect on it you give them a song and dance of how this and that is not covered.
An insurance policy is or was considered a contract of utmost good faith.Has that changed? This is obviously not the case anymore based on Sam and Nobody’s statements.
Please let me know so that I can go to my agency and cough over some more money for some high positioned person or agent working on commission to line their pockets more so.
I’ve always said an insurance policy doesn’t tell you what it covers only what it doesn’t.
What adjuster joe keeps saying to you is right on the money and YOU guys don’t want to accept the reality of it.
Instead you turn rude and unprovoked comments and insults.
If SF tries to screw the policy holder obviously they will win by hiring people to represent their cause after all they’ve taken the average persons money for premium payment.The average person doesn’t have the time or the money to fight large companies in court.
It’s good thing people like adjuster joe and myself are around to help try and resolve a claim fairly otherwise more people would be screwed.
Again,the insurance company should pay what’s owed nothing more nothing less.
Sam – just give up on adjusterjerk. The old coot is a total loser and a nutter. I also need to add that the guy is a serial sexual harrasser. This “man” lives with blinders on his eyes and ears and can not and will not listen to anything anyone has to say UNLESS it is in 100% agreement with his thoughts and opinions. Joe always seems to offer nothing and add irrelevance to any topic/discussion/post/etc. Sam, now watch adjusterjerk come on here and talk bad about me cause I am a woman. He does it all the time to all women on this site.
Mary:
Your LIES and PERSONAL ATTACKS get old. I have never personally attacked you or anyone else. I have never accused you or anyone else of being a child molesterer as you do me. The sole reason you and/or Jewel are part of any discussion due to your total and complete ignorance of insurance and nothing else.
Whoa, don’t see where Jewel or Rosie, for that matter, have checked in. Would welcome their comments, though. You better relax before you pop a fuse!
It seems obvious to me that chrome and adjusterjoe are public adjusters. That would explain their hatred of State Farm and other large carriers.
Don’t they make a living by trying to increase the amount of a claim to cover their 10% to 15% commisions? Maybe I’m wrong.
I handle claims based on the policy language, state law, and the damage present. I do not handle claims based on how I think a court will interpret the policy if the insured sues.
Wrong. Not a public adjuster. If you do not use jurisprudence in your deliberations then you end up, as does State Farm, with bad faith suits out the wazoo. I have zero bad faith claims in my career. You must have many annually.
My living comes directly from the insurance industry. I do not hate the industry. I do have a distrust for State Farm as they have exhibited a proclivity to abuse their insureds and in the casualty market they routinely deny and refuse to investigate legitimate claims. State Fram is responsible for more anti-insurance industry case law than all other companies combined.
Thank you Mark for pointing out the purpose of the policy. Pay what is owed.
Chrome, you are making assumptions about me, just as Joe did. Please don’t. You are wrong.
I do not purposely set out and look for a way to deny coverage for any claim. I look for every way possible to provide coverage to the policyholder based on the policy language. Sometimes, there is no coverage. If there is a dispute about the policy language, I look to case law AND seek the opinion of coverage counsel in that jurisdiction. I, like Mark, pay what is owed under the policy and have NEVER blindly denied a claim as suggested by a few posters. Nor have I ever hired an engineer to look for a way to deny coverage, nor encouraged an engineer or other expert to fabricate evidence.
Joe, I have provided several facts, cases and articles to you that dispute your position. Instead of continuing what is a futile argument with you, I chose to discontinue posting. You accused me of ‘taking my marbles and going home’. Well, that is my prerogative.
To All – Have a Nice Day
Sam:
You have provided zero FACTS; only your blind support of carriers whose main intent is to defraud insureds.
AJ,
You may want to read the entire 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion regarding the various issues on which Nationwide appealed. It’s not perfect, but it does overturn Judge Senter’s ruling on Nationwide’s anti-concurrent causation clause.
Here is a link to David Rossmiller’s blog, which has links to the AP story and the actual opinion in PDF format.
http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/archives/first-party-insurance-nationwide-v-leonard-fifth-circuit-upholds-anticoncurrent-cause-provision-as-unambiguous.html