Ah HA! A new target to sue. A class action suit against government schools for not teaching future policy holders how to read. AND against law schools for teaching lawyers how to imagine they read something in the policy that they did not.
Better yet a new market opportunity to sell people something called “The Stupid Dumb Dumb Insurance Policy” designed apecifically cover us all for every bad decision we make as we stumble through life with blinders on and making the baa sound like a sheep. An endorsement could also be optional that will cover you for any time you are wronged or think you were wronged by another person or entity. Of course ther would be no deductible and proof of loss could be verbal. No policy limits and it would sell for a very small amount. Oh yes, one last thing – if you want to buy policy retroactively, you can.
Here we go again! Another disaster and another effort to re-write policy language “after the fact.” Of course, the politicians and judges will soon be looking to redefine property damage, loss of use, peril and adjusted living expenses. That said, if a licensed agent told an insured/policyholder that coverage would be afforded (and the policyholder acted in a manner consistent with what he/she was told by an agent), the respective agent may have an E&O issue — regardless of how the insurance CONTRACT actually read. Regardless, the insurers always seem to be portrayed as the villians; not withstanding the fact that the insurance industry will reportedly pay $50BIL to insureds for actual covered losses. While some people wish to think otherwise, the insurance industry continues to fill holes where other financial entities will not — much to the benefit of our economy and citizens alike. Good luck and God-speed to all involved and the post-storm(s) recovery efforts.
Here is the classic situation where we have done things in a certain way for so long that we think the answer is as clear as glass only to find out that we are not reading what we think we are reading.
The Texas HO policies state the following: Loss of Use – If a loss caused by a Peril Insured Against Section I makes the residence premises wholly or partially untenantable, we cover ….”
The word “loss” in this Extension of Coverage agreement is not a defined term in the policy and therefore it takes on its common meaning. The common meaning of ‘Loss’ is that it is a generic and relative term signifying the act of losing a thing. Synonyms include ‘damage’, ‘deprivation’, ‘detriment’, ‘injury’ and ‘privation.’
The only clue you have to the policy intent of requiring physical damage to the insured property is further down in the ‘Loss of Use’ coverage paragraph which says: “Payment will be for the reasonable time required to repair or replace the damaged property.” The problem here is the term ‘damaged property’ does not limit the damage to the insured property. It could be damaged property someplace else causing the insured property to be untenantable.
I’m not trying to be argumentative. I only want to point out that an open mind can read this coverage different than we have been reading it for the past 35+ years I’ve been adjusting claims!
Then I’m right (convenience cover). If your normal commuting travel is by train and the train has a wreck before you get on it. Then you can’t get home and you can charge your hotel room to your homeowners loss of use coverage. Damage from land vehicles is included in even the most basic of homeowners policies.
Since when do we purchase a homeowner’s policy that extends to damage of property somewhere else? I don’t understand why anyone would think that because the supermarket down the street is damaged, that I might some how collect on my homeowner’s policy. The problem the general public has, aside from simply not reading the policy itself is the way the lawyers state the policy. I have trouble understanding all of the policy language and I have been in the business 12 years. Just because another state offers something does not mean the same company in a different state does. And now just because company A in Texas offers something does not mean company B does.
I understand your frustation and even it share it with you. My point is: The policy language itself is unclear in the Texas promulgated form. It only requires there be property damage and the insured residence untenantable. It doesn’t say the property damage has to be to the insured residence. It’s dumb – but, that’s what it says. It will be interesting to see how Allstate fairs.
Let’s hear it for “form de-regulation!” Seems like since mold was INVENTED in Texas (Overlooking that it IS in The Bible in Leviticus) – every company has come up with their very own coverage form….let’s see how they fare NOW!!
As I mentioned before, last June a storm took out the power to many homes across N Texas. The Allstate policy did not cover those of us whom only lost power. I lost all of my food and had to stay in a hotel for a week. The policy did not cover this as no damage was done to my dwelling. I do not see why one storm would be different from another. Rita took away the power to many homes, but if no damage was done to the dwelling itself than Allstate should not be obligated to pay for their inconvenience.
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.
Ah HA! A new target to sue. A class action suit against government schools for not teaching future policy holders how to read. AND against law schools for teaching lawyers how to imagine they read something in the policy that they did not.
Better yet a new market opportunity to sell people something called “The Stupid Dumb Dumb Insurance Policy” designed apecifically cover us all for every bad decision we make as we stumble through life with blinders on and making the baa sound like a sheep. An endorsement could also be optional that will cover you for any time you are wronged or think you were wronged by another person or entity. Of course ther would be no deductible and proof of loss could be verbal. No policy limits and it would sell for a very small amount. Oh yes, one last thing – if you want to buy policy retroactively, you can.
Here we go again! Another disaster and another effort to re-write policy language “after the fact.” Of course, the politicians and judges will soon be looking to redefine property damage, loss of use, peril and adjusted living expenses. That said, if a licensed agent told an insured/policyholder that coverage would be afforded (and the policyholder acted in a manner consistent with what he/she was told by an agent), the respective agent may have an E&O issue — regardless of how the insurance CONTRACT actually read. Regardless, the insurers always seem to be portrayed as the villians; not withstanding the fact that the insurance industry will reportedly pay $50BIL to insureds for actual covered losses. While some people wish to think otherwise, the insurance industry continues to fill holes where other financial entities will not — much to the benefit of our economy and citizens alike. Good luck and God-speed to all involved and the post-storm(s) recovery efforts.
Here is the classic situation where we have done things in a certain way for so long that we think the answer is as clear as glass only to find out that we are not reading what we think we are reading.
The Texas HO policies state the following: Loss of Use – If a loss caused by a Peril Insured Against Section I makes the residence premises wholly or partially untenantable, we cover ….”
The word “loss” in this Extension of Coverage agreement is not a defined term in the policy and therefore it takes on its common meaning. The common meaning of ‘Loss’ is that it is a generic and relative term signifying the act of losing a thing. Synonyms include ‘damage’, ‘deprivation’, ‘detriment’, ‘injury’ and ‘privation.’
The only clue you have to the policy intent of requiring physical damage to the insured property is further down in the ‘Loss of Use’ coverage paragraph which says: “Payment will be for the reasonable time required to repair or replace the damaged property.” The problem here is the term ‘damaged property’ does not limit the damage to the insured property. It could be damaged property someplace else causing the insured property to be untenantable.
I’m not trying to be argumentative. I only want to point out that an open mind can read this coverage different than we have been reading it for the past 35+ years I’ve been adjusting claims!
Then I’m right (convenience cover). If your normal commuting travel is by train and the train has a wreck before you get on it. Then you can’t get home and you can charge your hotel room to your homeowners loss of use coverage. Damage from land vehicles is included in even the most basic of homeowners policies.
Since when do we purchase a homeowner’s policy that extends to damage of property somewhere else? I don’t understand why anyone would think that because the supermarket down the street is damaged, that I might some how collect on my homeowner’s policy. The problem the general public has, aside from simply not reading the policy itself is the way the lawyers state the policy. I have trouble understanding all of the policy language and I have been in the business 12 years. Just because another state offers something does not mean the same company in a different state does. And now just because company A in Texas offers something does not mean company B does.
Mother Nature is working with the lawyers to keep rates up. God’s a Republican.
Aw somebody had to say it – this blog has gotten way too serious.
I understand your frustation and even it share it with you. My point is: The policy language itself is unclear in the Texas promulgated form. It only requires there be property damage and the insured residence untenantable. It doesn’t say the property damage has to be to the insured residence. It’s dumb – but, that’s what it says. It will be interesting to see how Allstate fairs.
Let’s hear it for “form de-regulation!” Seems like since mold was INVENTED in Texas (Overlooking that it IS in The Bible in Leviticus) – every company has come up with their very own coverage form….let’s see how they fare NOW!!
As I mentioned before, last June a storm took out the power to many homes across N Texas. The Allstate policy did not cover those of us whom only lost power. I lost all of my food and had to stay in a hotel for a week. The policy did not cover this as no damage was done to my dwelling. I do not see why one storm would be different from another. Rita took away the power to many homes, but if no damage was done to the dwelling itself than Allstate should not be obligated to pay for their inconvenience.