Brokette, you have made my day. I will stop reading IJ because I have had my fill of folks “who have eyes” and feel compelled to tell me what is wrong with my naive compartmentalized world. So since you feel it is OK to talk down to me, allow me to do the same to you: SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE!
Hi, the point of my note is that my legal brethren will seek every party even remotely connected to this debacle to find negligence, some form of coverage, and limits. Agents and Brokers e&o will be a potential source of money and they will be part of the lawsuits. The logic of having actuarially sound rates, adeguate premiums, clear endorsements, will mean nothing once the lawsuits start.
You simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
First of all, third party General Liability coverage has nothing to do with “named perils”. That is a first party concept..that you insure your own property for certain named perils…Liability coverage does not deal in PERILS at all, ever. In liability insurance, so long as the facts of the loss meet the insuring agreement, and coverage is not EXCLUDED OR OTHERWISE LIMITED,it’s covered. The fact that there are Exclusions, causes there to be NO COVERAGE. You cannot go out and find someone willing to cover defective work product….you cannot buy that….it is not “insurance”…it is a “warranty”…no one sells it~!!!!!!!!!!
Thomas McGowan…how you are turning this into agent E and O is equally as mysterious…you can’t buy endorsements to cover defective work….they don’t exist..the endorsements referenced are to spell out to every nimrod who thinks defective work is covered, that in fact, it is NOT.
There may be lots of defendants if plaintiff’s lawyers want to play, but that doesn’t mean anyone is going to pay.
There was no coverage for asbestos either but millions of dollars have been spent to defend those cases and millions more have been allocated for settlements.
John Mansfield, Owens Corning, Stearns Brakes and numerous other companies were weakened or destroyed in that minefield.
I cannot fault the plaintiff attorneys for their creativity or their advocacy on behalf of their clients. It is horrific that many who lost their homes to Katrina now are suffering with Chinese drywall claims. Those cases are extremely sympathetic and Judge Fallon presides over the very venue that still suffers from that open wound.
None of us know what will happen ultimately…We do know that it will change the landscape for many entities…few of which will be positive (changes).
True….but, the policies written back in the 70’s are vastly different that those written today. While it is unfortunate that the product MAY BE defective, I don’t really think the plaintiff lawyers motivation to accept these cases is driven by the desire to “help their client”…it’s driven by a desire to figure out how to manipulate the system into a paycheck for themselves.
Although I don’t specifically know the Judge which you refer to, generally Louisiana judges are rather loose with insurers money. Judges can write the policies by erroneous interpretation if they want, but eventually Louisiana residents and business will pay, through higher prices and lack of insurers from which to choose. These things always come back to bite you. IT’S NOT A WARRANTY.
Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. I was merely making a cogent argument for my point of view. I see that you are a cunning linguist utilizing all the monosyllabic words you learned in grade school. Bravo, sir!
Come on, guys. Let us be a little nicer here. I happen to COMPLETELY agree with the coverage explanation as put forth by our friend. But, as we joked about in law school – if a dog bites your client, sue GM, it has more money. Well, at least it used to. We do not need bitterness or rancor here, we all just need to recognize that there could be massive lawsuits, and there will be, over this issue. A class action is a possibility. Let us think about the similar problems which arose involving external insulation finishing systems. If the mold which arose due to trapping moisture could not be remediated, there were massive claims for ripping off walls and even some for claiming that the value of the house had been destroyed in its entirety. AND, of interest, not of possibility but of fact, in many of those claims agents ACTUALLY were sued. And, the defense of those claims cost a fair amount of money. And, knowing some of the attorneys involved, there ACTUALLY were settlements made. These were not issues of fairness, or the correct policy interpretation, but simply of seeking recompense on the part of a client from any possible party. The insurance industry oftentimes is very right, but there is still the likelihood of some massive defense costs. Keep it nice guys tom
The industry learned alot from EIFS. Most of them have new updated reinforced notgonnahappen Exclusions, which they anticipate will be challenged again. I’m sure someone will want to be the challenger, and it will cost insurers and insureds lots of money to defend. It’s definitely good for the lawyers, but not so good for society.
However, I’m still not tracking on the earlier post about Agent’s Errors and Ommissions..I can’t foresee how an agent could have given this type of coverage….it didn’t exist to give.
And your post says “Claims agents” were sued…not sure if you mean claims personnel or agents? I am not aware of any claims personnel who were personally sued for their handling and had to pay any settlements. If Agents, I welcome your version of their “error” or “omission”.
Yes, Tom, I agree that any fool can sue and often does. :-) I think the insurance industry is tired of being the bad guy in all of this. Everytime a large loss occurs the insurance industry is called upon to make it “all better”. China is putting out some very dangerous products and we (our government regulators who beat domestic companies into submission) appear incapable or unwilling to do anything about it. We look to insurance to become the social remedy. China’s the bad guy here and something needs to be done to curtail these imports. Perhaps another “beer summit”? :-o
Sorry for the somewhat quickly typed comments. There actually were agents who were sued (not claims people) on the basis that 1) that the agents should have advised the clients that there was no coverage(gosh, maybe they could have found it from another source) 2) most interestingly, agents were sued and asked whether they had exhausted ALL possible markets to find possible coverage – sort of the Lloyds claim (I am a “name” there and am not sure if anyone EVER asked for this coverage) 3)incredibly, that there SHOULD have been coverage as the forms were confusing and therefore that coverage might apply. You have to admit, these were clever tom
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.
Brokette, you have made my day. I will stop reading IJ because I have had my fill of folks “who have eyes” and feel compelled to tell me what is wrong with my naive compartmentalized world. So since you feel it is OK to talk down to me, allow me to do the same to you: SHOVE IT WHERE THE SUN DON’T SHINE!
Hi, the point of my note is that my legal brethren will seek every party even remotely connected to this debacle to find negligence, some form of coverage, and limits. Agents and Brokers e&o will be a potential source of money and they will be part of the lawsuits. The logic of having actuarially sound rates, adeguate premiums, clear endorsements, will mean nothing once the lawsuits start.
Stat guy and Thomas McGowan:
You simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
First of all, third party General Liability coverage has nothing to do with “named perils”. That is a first party concept..that you insure your own property for certain named perils…Liability coverage does not deal in PERILS at all, ever. In liability insurance, so long as the facts of the loss meet the insuring agreement, and coverage is not EXCLUDED OR OTHERWISE LIMITED,it’s covered. The fact that there are Exclusions, causes there to be NO COVERAGE. You cannot go out and find someone willing to cover defective work product….you cannot buy that….it is not “insurance”…it is a “warranty”…no one sells it~!!!!!!!!!!
Thomas McGowan…how you are turning this into agent E and O is equally as mysterious…you can’t buy endorsements to cover defective work….they don’t exist..the endorsements referenced are to spell out to every nimrod who thinks defective work is covered, that in fact, it is NOT.
There may be lots of defendants if plaintiff’s lawyers want to play, but that doesn’t mean anyone is going to pay.
There was no coverage for asbestos either but millions of dollars have been spent to defend those cases and millions more have been allocated for settlements.
John Mansfield, Owens Corning, Stearns Brakes and numerous other companies were weakened or destroyed in that minefield.
I cannot fault the plaintiff attorneys for their creativity or their advocacy on behalf of their clients. It is horrific that many who lost their homes to Katrina now are suffering with Chinese drywall claims. Those cases are extremely sympathetic and Judge Fallon presides over the very venue that still suffers from that open wound.
None of us know what will happen ultimately…We do know that it will change the landscape for many entities…few of which will be positive (changes).
True….but, the policies written back in the 70’s are vastly different that those written today. While it is unfortunate that the product MAY BE defective, I don’t really think the plaintiff lawyers motivation to accept these cases is driven by the desire to “help their client”…it’s driven by a desire to figure out how to manipulate the system into a paycheck for themselves.
Although I don’t specifically know the Judge which you refer to, generally Louisiana judges are rather loose with insurers money. Judges can write the policies by erroneous interpretation if they want, but eventually Louisiana residents and business will pay, through higher prices and lack of insurers from which to choose. These things always come back to bite you. IT’S NOT A WARRANTY.
Sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities. I was merely making a cogent argument for my point of view. I see that you are a cunning linguist utilizing all the monosyllabic words you learned in grade school. Bravo, sir!
Come on, guys. Let us be a little nicer here. I happen to COMPLETELY agree with the coverage explanation as put forth by our friend. But, as we joked about in law school – if a dog bites your client, sue GM, it has more money. Well, at least it used to. We do not need bitterness or rancor here, we all just need to recognize that there could be massive lawsuits, and there will be, over this issue. A class action is a possibility. Let us think about the similar problems which arose involving external insulation finishing systems. If the mold which arose due to trapping moisture could not be remediated, there were massive claims for ripping off walls and even some for claiming that the value of the house had been destroyed in its entirety. AND, of interest, not of possibility but of fact, in many of those claims agents ACTUALLY were sued. And, the defense of those claims cost a fair amount of money. And, knowing some of the attorneys involved, there ACTUALLY were settlements made. These were not issues of fairness, or the correct policy interpretation, but simply of seeking recompense on the part of a client from any possible party. The insurance industry oftentimes is very right, but there is still the likelihood of some massive defense costs. Keep it nice guys tom
The industry learned alot from EIFS. Most of them have new updated reinforced notgonnahappen Exclusions, which they anticipate will be challenged again. I’m sure someone will want to be the challenger, and it will cost insurers and insureds lots of money to defend. It’s definitely good for the lawyers, but not so good for society.
However, I’m still not tracking on the earlier post about Agent’s Errors and Ommissions..I can’t foresee how an agent could have given this type of coverage….it didn’t exist to give.
And your post says “Claims agents” were sued…not sure if you mean claims personnel or agents? I am not aware of any claims personnel who were personally sued for their handling and had to pay any settlements. If Agents, I welcome your version of their “error” or “omission”.
Yes, Tom, I agree that any fool can sue and often does. :-) I think the insurance industry is tired of being the bad guy in all of this. Everytime a large loss occurs the insurance industry is called upon to make it “all better”. China is putting out some very dangerous products and we (our government regulators who beat domestic companies into submission) appear incapable or unwilling to do anything about it. We look to insurance to become the social remedy. China’s the bad guy here and something needs to be done to curtail these imports. Perhaps another “beer summit”? :-o
Sorry for the somewhat quickly typed comments. There actually were agents who were sued (not claims people) on the basis that 1) that the agents should have advised the clients that there was no coverage(gosh, maybe they could have found it from another source) 2) most interestingly, agents were sued and asked whether they had exhausted ALL possible markets to find possible coverage – sort of the Lloyds claim (I am a “name” there and am not sure if anyone EVER asked for this coverage) 3)incredibly, that there SHOULD have been coverage as the forms were confusing and therefore that coverage might apply. You have to admit, these were clever tom