Many issues here, and one can’t help but feel sorry for all the stress created for all involved. Flood policy definitions, regulator issues, homeowner carrier issues, agency advice, lender (if applicable) requirements, and mostly, the owners personal choices regarding all of the above.
The carrier seems/appears to have made an effort to pay for the wind damage, but the owners didn’t anticipate the worst and understand what “Mother Nature” can do.
Similar issues go back, in my lifetime, to Camile in 1969. There always has to be someone to blame, doesn’t there?
The answer is to buy a policy that covers the exposure. You don’t want to go into a double indemnification situation. Then it’s more of a speculative risk than an insurance risk.
If it was despicable, the commissioner should have said that they don’t allow any that language in their state. The problem is that the state approves such exclusion, the coverage isn’t priced in, and then the big bad insurance company loses money when the courts renig on the DOI’s approval.
my problem is that one extends to the other. so in reality, are we not stating we not going to cover the damage even though it might be the same damage? my concern as a soon-to-be homeowner, is finding coverage that will indemnify me. houses are an investment, but if we can’t be indemnified, why have insurance? this is a problem with many homeowners. sounds like some companies want to skate by or around exclusions so they don’t have to pay and wind up with money in the pockets. then in the backend, find a lawsuit that might keep that money in the insurance hands instead of indemnifing the homeowner for their loss. it is a confusing situation and hopefully this can help resolve part of the issue.
Temblor: Calm Down! In this case the company in question did not deny coverage due to concurrent causation. They simply did not pay the portion of the damage to the property that was determined to be caused by water. The original dispute between the homeowner and the company was what damage was caused by wind and what damage was caused by water i.e. the homeowner did not agree with the settlement offered (this is probably the case with 95% of homeowners claims). This case has been covered repeatedly in the Journal… Know the FACTS
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.
and insurance companies wonder why they have a bad reputation……..duh!
Exactly! This is an example of the worst possible behavior.
And the OTHER wonder is why the Miss. Ins. Dept. ever allowed the use of that clause. They could have, and should have, blocked it in the beginning.
To Customers: Why don’t y’all just by Flood Insurance?
To Agents: Why don’t y’all sell Flood Insurance?
To Companies: Why don’t y’all require Flood Insurance policy concurrent w/HO policy in coastal areas??
Many issues here, and one can’t help but feel sorry for all the stress created for all involved. Flood policy definitions, regulator issues, homeowner carrier issues, agency advice, lender (if applicable) requirements, and mostly, the owners personal choices regarding all of the above.
The carrier seems/appears to have made an effort to pay for the wind damage, but the owners didn’t anticipate the worst and understand what “Mother Nature” can do.
Similar issues go back, in my lifetime, to Camile in 1969. There always has to be someone to blame, doesn’t there?
“The insured’s right to be indemnified for a covered loss vests at time of loss,” the opinion states.”
____________________
When insurer type humans stop trying to rig basic indemnification physics against fellow humans, then pigs will fly in a frozen over hell.
The answer is to buy a policy that covers the exposure. You don’t want to go into a double indemnification situation. Then it’s more of a speculative risk than an insurance risk.
If it was despicable, the commissioner should have said that they don’t allow any that language in their state. The problem is that the state approves such exclusion, the coverage isn’t priced in, and then the big bad insurance company loses money when the courts renig on the DOI’s approval.
Nevertheless, putting language like this in a policy is despicable. Damage by wind, then, if further damage by flood = no coverage for wind?
Despicable.
my problem is that one extends to the other. so in reality, are we not stating we not going to cover the damage even though it might be the same damage? my concern as a soon-to-be homeowner, is finding coverage that will indemnify me. houses are an investment, but if we can’t be indemnified, why have insurance? this is a problem with many homeowners. sounds like some companies want to skate by or around exclusions so they don’t have to pay and wind up with money in the pockets. then in the backend, find a lawsuit that might keep that money in the insurance hands instead of indemnifing the homeowner for their loss. it is a confusing situation and hopefully this can help resolve part of the issue.
Temblor: Calm Down! In this case the company in question did not deny coverage due to concurrent causation. They simply did not pay the portion of the damage to the property that was determined to be caused by water. The original dispute between the homeowner and the company was what damage was caused by wind and what damage was caused by water i.e. the homeowner did not agree with the settlement offered (this is probably the case with 95% of homeowners claims). This case has been covered repeatedly in the Journal… Know the FACTS