Kim-
I wonder if anybody has pointed that out to Scruggs housekeeper yet.
I see that you have become quite active in postings. I disagree with your point of view.
IF you would learn to SPELL (you lose your house, not loose it), perhaps your point of view would be more persuasive. Perhaps they also refer to you as a ‘redneck’ because you write like one!
Bill Lockhart-
I follow a lot of your (usually) intelligent comments on this blog. Unfortunately, you completely misunderstand the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. Look into David Rossmiller’s “Insurance Coverage Blog” and look back into his reasoning that the ACC Clause is not even applicable to Katrina losses.
Additionally, you are causing me to quote the clause in question (something that I regard as extremely pedantic.)
“A. We do not insure for any loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the FOLLOWING. SUCH LOSS is excluded regardless of any other cause or event CONTRIBUTING CONCURRENTLY OR IN ANY SEQUENCE to the loss. THESE EXCLUSIONS apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or effects a substantial area.” (CAPS added).
There are some key words in that clause, namely the FOLLOWING losses are excluded. Water damage seems to be the most controversial. AT NO POINT OR TIME does the ACC Clause remove windstorm damage from coverage. It is my understanding that the ACC Clause was only used ONCE as a means of declining coverage (and that due to an error by outside counsel, who was quickly called on the carpet and told that was NOT the company’s position).
If you are going to continue to defame the ACC Clause, please read it first!
Excuse me for the typo….
You can’t even leave your real name &
that shows that you are most certainly a
Coward.
Would rather be a red neck than a coward!
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders.
You poor whiney liberal. If any atty. is your hero, your life is very sad. You need these guys to re-distribute OUR wealth as you have no hope of making any on your own.
The FLOOD coverage is available from the federal govt. Did these people, living at BELOW SEA LEVEL, think to buy flood insurance? NO, that could never happen? As usual, whether wind or water caused the damage, the insured wants coverage. Of course, regardless of whether there was an actual video tape of the home standing until the rush of water leveled it, these whiners would file a claim and state no one told us to “read” the flood exclusion?
The private insurers can NOT collect premium for flood, only the govt. can. No premium, NO COVERAGE!!
to tell you the truth, there are insurance companies that do offer that coverage besides the GOVERNMENT…some companies that do, do not tell they have the coverage and that is what is discouraging policyholders…but the point is that each policyholder should be aware of the coverage they have and not take it for granted…and that includes auto!
I just read that one of the attorneys indicted along with Scruggs has changed his plea from not-guilty to guilty, and will be cooperating with prosecutors. This does not bode well for either Mr. Scruggs. Tricky Dickey appears to be an appropriate nickname for the elder Scruggs.
ANITA LEE calee@sunherald.com
More insurance coverage
Amended complaint against State Farm, vendors
Exhibits to the amended complaint
MOST-READ STORIES
Reggie Bush: Messiah or just mess?
Cable One rates to increase
Scruggs quits storm cases
Man’s request embarrasses caregiver
Lawyer pleads guilty, cooperating in case involving Scruggs
Flood zone expands under FEMA maps
Air/heat units are being stolen
2 men arrested in store holdup
Prostitution operation nets 19
AROUND SOUTH MISSISSIPPI
The owner of an engineering firm hoped to make up to $1.5 million over three months by adjusting Hurricane Katrina claims for State Farm, borrowing $150,000 and establishing a line of credit with State Farm Bank to set up shop on the Mississippi Coast in September 2005, according to records filed late Tuesday in federal court.
Because of the arrangement, Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corp. was beholden to State Farm, which wanted to minimize its Hurricane Katrina losses for wind damage, the lawsuit says. Another vendor that adjusted Katrina claims, the independent adjusting firm E.A. Renfroe & Co. Inc., at times owed 80 percent of its income to State Farm, the court records say.
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.
I don’t for a minute believe a word you say but only wonder who lined your pockets?
Kim-
I wonder if anybody has pointed that out to Scruggs housekeeper yet.
I see that you have become quite active in postings. I disagree with your point of view.
IF you would learn to SPELL (you lose your house, not loose it), perhaps your point of view would be more persuasive. Perhaps they also refer to you as a ‘redneck’ because you write like one!
Bill Lockhart-
I follow a lot of your (usually) intelligent comments on this blog. Unfortunately, you completely misunderstand the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause. Look into David Rossmiller’s “Insurance Coverage Blog” and look back into his reasoning that the ACC Clause is not even applicable to Katrina losses.
Additionally, you are causing me to quote the clause in question (something that I regard as extremely pedantic.)
“A. We do not insure for any loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the FOLLOWING. SUCH LOSS is excluded regardless of any other cause or event CONTRIBUTING CONCURRENTLY OR IN ANY SEQUENCE to the loss. THESE EXCLUSIONS apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or effects a substantial area.” (CAPS added).
There are some key words in that clause, namely the FOLLOWING losses are excluded. Water damage seems to be the most controversial. AT NO POINT OR TIME does the ACC Clause remove windstorm damage from coverage. It is my understanding that the ACC Clause was only used ONCE as a means of declining coverage (and that due to an error by outside counsel, who was quickly called on the carpet and told that was NOT the company’s position).
If you are going to continue to defame the ACC Clause, please read it first!
Excuse me for the typo….
You can’t even leave your real name &
that shows that you are most certainly a
Coward.
Would rather be a red neck than a coward!
TO THE UNTOUCHABLES. Edward B. Rust, Jr., will be happy to tell you that he is the Chief Executive Officer of State Farm Mutual Insurance Company. He has deep family ties to State Farm, as his father and grand father have both served in that capacity. He will also tell you that he is an educated man who has been to law school and is a past practicing attorney. In addition, he was the chairman of the Coalition for Excellence in Education and a member of George W. Bush’s transition advisory team on education. So with all of that education why will he not deal with his company’s inbred greed. Does he not know that we are in the 21st century where anyone can look on the internet and see the billions of dollars that are being spent to protect their empire from the consumer? In Utah, the company was fine $25 million in punitive damages, in part for the “systematic destruction of documents and systematic manipulation of individual claim files to conceal claim mishandling”. An Idaho appeals court fined the company $9.5 million in punitive damages for making use of “a completely bogus” outside bill review company that helped lower the cost of medical bills. In October of 1999, an Illinois jury rendered a $456 million judgment against State Farm and an additional $730 million in punitive damages for the insurer’s breach of contract with auto policy holders by relying on generic replacement parts. Rust was adamant in his insistence that fraud had not been committed. A class action law suit in the name of State Farm policy holders was filed in 2003 for breach of contract and statutory consumer fraud in which $1.1 billion was awarded to plaintiffs. When a company is misleading the public, should that not be considered fraud? A consumer would go to prison for that type of behavior. State Farm will let you know that, in several states, fraud and abuse is pushing up the cost of auto insurance. A court in late 2001 reached an unfriendly consumer decision that could have the effect of reaching deep into the pockets of the consumer. Sharply higher jury awards in vehicular liability cases are putting additional upward pressure on auto insurance rates. The average jury award in auto liability cases rose from $187,000 to $269,000 in 2000, an increase of 44%. I question if any of the lawsuits would be necessary if the company would just fairly pay their claims. The company represents on their web-site that consumer protection is one of their most important goals, but do they really think that courts would be awarding multiple millions of dollars in bad faith claims if that were their emphasis? State Farm’s ratings are based on their financial strength. State Farm states that their high ratings are also based on strong claims paying ability. With this ability, why is it necessary for their policy holders to allege that the claims department was directed, in evaluating their cases, to take them to trial instead of settling within the limits of the policy? This practice exposed policyholders to judgments above the limits of their policies, when the company was attempting to make an effort to win smaller decisions. Two former in-house attorneys for State Farm contend that they were often called upon by the insurer to represent its’ policy holders and were forced to commit “unlawful and unethical activities, including requiring the two to stay silent about the rights of the policyholders”. State Farm seems to have reckless indifference for the truth for the purpose of corporate and personal economic gain. State Farm should know that continued scrutiny of their claims paying practices will continue especially with the advent of new claims that are surfacing from lawsuits revolving around Hurricane Katrina. A message to Mr. Rust, and any employee of the company that is acting in bad faith for its policy holders.
You poor whiney liberal. If any atty. is your hero, your life is very sad. You need these guys to re-distribute OUR wealth as you have no hope of making any on your own.
The FLOOD coverage is available from the federal govt. Did these people, living at BELOW SEA LEVEL, think to buy flood insurance? NO, that could never happen? As usual, whether wind or water caused the damage, the insured wants coverage. Of course, regardless of whether there was an actual video tape of the home standing until the rush of water leveled it, these whiners would file a claim and state no one told us to “read” the flood exclusion?
The private insurers can NOT collect premium for flood, only the govt. can. No premium, NO COVERAGE!!
I bet Hillary is another hero of yours?
to tell you the truth, there are insurance companies that do offer that coverage besides the GOVERNMENT…some companies that do, do not tell they have the coverage and that is what is discouraging policyholders…but the point is that each policyholder should be aware of the coverage they have and not take it for granted…and that includes auto!
I just read that one of the attorneys indicted along with Scruggs has changed his plea from not-guilty to guilty, and will be cooperating with prosecutors. This does not bode well for either Mr. Scruggs. Tricky Dickey appears to be an appropriate nickname for the elder Scruggs.
ANITA LEE
calee@sunherald.com
More insurance coverage
Amended complaint against State Farm, vendors
Exhibits to the amended complaint
MOST-READ STORIES
Reggie Bush: Messiah or just mess?
Cable One rates to increase
Scruggs quits storm cases
Man’s request embarrasses caregiver
Lawyer pleads guilty, cooperating in case involving Scruggs
Flood zone expands under FEMA maps
Air/heat units are being stolen
2 men arrested in store holdup
Prostitution operation nets 19
AROUND SOUTH MISSISSIPPI
The owner of an engineering firm hoped to make up to $1.5 million over three months by adjusting Hurricane Katrina claims for State Farm, borrowing $150,000 and establishing a line of credit with State Farm Bank to set up shop on the Mississippi Coast in September 2005, according to records filed late Tuesday in federal court.
Because of the arrangement, Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corp. was beholden to State Farm, which wanted to minimize its Hurricane Katrina losses for wind damage, the lawsuit says. Another vendor that adjusted Katrina claims, the independent adjusting firm E.A. Renfroe & Co. Inc., at times owed 80 percent of its income to State Farm, the court records say.
A team of policyholders’
BILOXI – A State Farm employee who is helping
attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs gather
evidence against the company mentioned in
passing that a shredder truck outside the State
Farm Catastrophe Office made a deafening racket
as it chewed up records.
“Shredder truck?” repeated Scruggs, who is suing
State Farm on behalf of 670 policyholders the
company has refused to fully cover for Hurricane
Katrina damages.
“I just about jumped out of my chair,” Scruggs told
the Sun Herald. “I’m very concerned when a big
company like this, that is very litigation savvy,
starts shredding original documents.”