Allstate Ordered to Cover Expenses of Rita Evacuees

October 10, 2005

  • November 10, 2005 at 6:53 am
    JimnTx says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Susan,
    Insurance 101…when there are ambiguities in policy language, the policyholder almost always win.

  • November 10, 2005 at 6:59 am
    Stacey says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hello Jim, when justified, I would think so!!!

  • November 12, 2005 at 12:06 pm
    Dennis says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Ok, so you are an Allstate agent, that explains your attitude and position on the policies. Are you one of the agents that did not know that Allstate decided in December of 2004 to cover fences and trees that fall (even not on the home) in Texas?
    My local agent said he didn\’t know a thing about it. Amazing!

  • November 11, 2005 at 12:55 pm
    Enough says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I can sum this up in 6 words.
    \”You get what you pay for\”
    If you don\’t like generic cola, spend the extra nickel and get Coke.
    Every company has different policies and endorsements, buyer beware, because you could be buying a Yugo that only looks like a Cadillac. If anyone is still arguing that flood should be covered under the hurricane or wind coverage I can not help you and neither can anyone else, read the owners manual for your Yugo and ask about options that are not included on the factory model. Flood is an optional coverage that is purchased seperately. The policy clearly states it does not cover flood or rising water even if driven by wind. As far as additioanl living expenses, call you congressmen and senators and the Texas insurance commisioner and ask why they failed to approve the better policy form that would have given you the protection you needed, I don;t like Allstate at all, but I wont blame them for this, they tried to get the policy language approved and they were rejected. A company can not pay for damages that was not provided for in the policy. Not only can they not justify the expense, it would nullify the contract and allow coverage for ALL perils if they paid for a single uncovered peril.
    Sorry, but we must change the way coverage is written.

  • November 11, 2005 at 1:21 am
    JimnTx says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You know I\’ve read this policy and I don\’t see an exclusion for the ALE. Can you tell me where it is?

  • November 11, 2005 at 2:39 am
    Hal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There is a couple different lines of wording. What I\’ve read: One pays ALE when the property is not habitable after there is covered damage to the insured property. The other can pay ALE if the property is not accessible because of a covered event. The second one does not require damage to the property.
    The Allstate policy in LA is the first kind. The Allstate policy applied for in Texas was that same kind of wording but what was approved by the department is the second form – even though other companies in Texas have the LA form. Why? Beats me.

  • November 11, 2005 at 2:44 am
    Chad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hal, can you give an example of a company that uses the LA form you\’re talking about? Every policy I\’ve seen uses the second example you gave.

  • November 11, 2005 at 2:55 am
    enough says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Coverage \”D\” Loss of Use
    1) If a loss covered under this section makes that part of the \”residence premises\” where you reside not fit to live in, we cover, at your choice, either of the following. However, if the \”residence premises\” is not your principal place of residence, we will not provide the option under paragraph b. below.
    a) Additional living expense, meaning and necessary increase in living expenses incurred by you so that your household can maintain its normal standard of living; or
    b) Fair rental value, meaning the fair rental value of that part of the \”residence premises\” where you reside less any expenses that do not continue while the premises is not fit to live in.

    The question is, was the \”residence premises\” damaged and did the damage render it not livable. Having no electricity does not make the house damaged or unlivable. It is everyone\’s responsiblity to protect their home from damage, it is also your responsiblity to protect your life, and if that requires you to leave the area and seek shelter, don\’t look for someone to pay your hotel bill because you left. If you suffered damage to your house, you deserve to be paid ALE if your home is not livable, and you will be paid. We are all uncomfortable in the heat with no air conditioning, but insurance companies are not here to make you comfortable, they insure against loss.

  • November 11, 2005 at 3:00 am
    Hal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I was told by a friend with Allstate who talked with his higher-ups. He said they told him that the Allstate policy in Louisiana could pay some for ALE without proof of property damage. He said they told him the form they have in LA was applied for in Texas but not approved.
    At about the same time I was told that some of the companies were paying a starting amount of ALE ($2500) without seeing the property if it was in an evacuated area and they could inspect. But if there is no property damage the insured has to pay the money back to the insurance company.

  • November 11, 2005 at 3:29 am
    Chad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So where did you get that other companies in Texas have the LA form?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*