Hey, wasn’t there a story this weekend where a black man was breaking into his own house with a crowbar, and the neighbors called the police ? And the nice white police offer responded and the black man acted like a J*C*A*S, refusing to provide ID. And Obama said “I don’t have the facts but that police officer was STUPID”. Sounds like Bama is the racist to me!
Out of all these comments maybe three of them are on point about the drywall. I hate politics and the political fighting that goes on in this comment section. I’m just a lowly claim adjuster trying to keep up on things that affect my job. Can’t we find somewhere else for the political diatribes and stick to the insurance issues. I do want to give a thumbs up to Jim for the Johnny Dangerously reference. Great Movie.
In this case, it turned political because the hyena immediately blamed the Republicans for defective Chinese products. I think he blamed Reagan.
On point though, this one will be good for defense counsel. If I were a targeted GC or Sub, I think I’d be shutting my business down, and reopening under another corporation. It will be interesting to see how the new coverage defenses work out on this one.
The EIFS claims in the 90’s ended up being paid by the mfg insurance carriers. Attorney’s gave up on the contractors for all the reasons outlined. In this case, there are no mfg to go after, so the importer is going to be on the hook. Will this create tighter underwriting of chinese imports? Not yet and tainted drywall has been an issue for over a year.
well, have we learned our lessen yet? you wonder why we purchased cheaply made chinese items? supposedly the feds have restrictions on some goods like lead% and many other items. but are we as a country so indebted to the chinese, that we as a country allow these things to happen or the chinese will take over our country because we owe them so much debt?
i think we need to step back and take a look at our trading situation. cheaply made things from china or should we be interested in getting our economy online, but purchasing american made items. items that already meet our guidelines on produced goods. how can our country believe in itself, if we keep purchasing many non-usa made items?
Government in China is primarily interested in control of the population from a political and military support point of view. The Mao way of thinking is still prevelant, however, capitalism to a certain extent is keeping the young, tech happy population appeased. Environment, health, and control of manufacturing is down on the list of priorities. Example: Almost 80% of the population over 18 smokes.
With the bad press the Chinese have had recently with lead, dog food, dry wall, etc, the priorities as regards QC will have to be adjusted if they want to be a major player in the western markets. Wake up call for the Chinese once again.
I disagree with the contents of the article. The Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement precludes coverage for “‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ which would not have occurred but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants.'” “Pollutants” are defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, chemicals and waste.” Because the claims for property damage and personal injury are a result of a pollutant, coverage is completely barred by the Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement.
The author of this article seems to think general liability coverage under the builder’s insurance policy will still likely apply to property damage to contents and bodily injury claims by occupants. I don’t see that possible if the Total Pollution Endorsement is present on the policy.
I believe you may have misread that portion of the article. Did you see the portion where he stated the following:
Unfortunately, many general liability policies that are sold to contractors include a Total Pollution Exclusion that does not allow the exception that is mentioned in the above paragraph. The presence of the Total Pollution Exclusion (or similar exclusion) on a policy will allow the insurance carrier to take the position of denial of all damages and legal defense.
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.
Hyena, Help me out….
Hey, wasn’t there a story this weekend where a black man was breaking into his own house with a crowbar, and the neighbors called the police ? And the nice white police offer responded and the black man acted like a J*C*A*S, refusing to provide ID. And Obama said “I don’t have the facts but that police officer was STUPID”. Sounds like Bama is the racist to me!
Out of all these comments maybe three of them are on point about the drywall. I hate politics and the political fighting that goes on in this comment section. I’m just a lowly claim adjuster trying to keep up on things that affect my job. Can’t we find somewhere else for the political diatribes and stick to the insurance issues. I do want to give a thumbs up to Jim for the Johnny Dangerously reference. Great Movie.
In this case, it turned political because the hyena immediately blamed the Republicans for defective Chinese products. I think he blamed Reagan.
On point though, this one will be good for defense counsel. If I were a targeted GC or Sub, I think I’d be shutting my business down, and reopening under another corporation. It will be interesting to see how the new coverage defenses work out on this one.
The EIFS claims in the 90’s ended up being paid by the mfg insurance carriers. Attorney’s gave up on the contractors for all the reasons outlined. In this case, there are no mfg to go after, so the importer is going to be on the hook. Will this create tighter underwriting of chinese imports? Not yet and tainted drywall has been an issue for over a year.
“And the Chinese walls came tumbling down.” “Stack-a-lee and Willie”…………….
Never trust the Chinese or the Russians. Is that to political?
well, have we learned our lessen yet? you wonder why we purchased cheaply made chinese items? supposedly the feds have restrictions on some goods like lead% and many other items. but are we as a country so indebted to the chinese, that we as a country allow these things to happen or the chinese will take over our country because we owe them so much debt?
i think we need to step back and take a look at our trading situation. cheaply made things from china or should we be interested in getting our economy online, but purchasing american made items. items that already meet our guidelines on produced goods. how can our country believe in itself, if we keep purchasing many non-usa made items?
Government in China is primarily interested in control of the population from a political and military support point of view. The Mao way of thinking is still prevelant, however, capitalism to a certain extent is keeping the young, tech happy population appeased. Environment, health, and control of manufacturing is down on the list of priorities. Example: Almost 80% of the population over 18 smokes.
With the bad press the Chinese have had recently with lead, dog food, dry wall, etc, the priorities as regards QC will have to be adjusted if they want to be a major player in the western markets. Wake up call for the Chinese once again.
I disagree with the contents of the article. The Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement precludes coverage for “‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ which would not have occurred but for the actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of ‘pollutants.'” “Pollutants” are defined as “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, chemicals and waste.” Because the claims for property damage and personal injury are a result of a pollutant, coverage is completely barred by the Total Pollution Exclusion Endorsement.
The author of this article seems to think general liability coverage under the builder’s insurance policy will still likely apply to property damage to contents and bodily injury claims by occupants. I don’t see that possible if the Total Pollution Endorsement is present on the policy.
I believe you may have misread that portion of the article. Did you see the portion where he stated the following:
Unfortunately, many general liability policies that are sold to contractors include a Total Pollution Exclusion that does not allow the exception that is mentioned in the above paragraph. The presence of the Total Pollution Exclusion (or similar exclusion) on a policy will allow the insurance carrier to take the position of denial of all damages and legal defense.
From what little I’ve read these claims and lawsuits seem to be primarily in Florida.
Does anyone have knowledge of these being filed or seen elsewhere in the US?
If so, where and what are those numbers?