Allstate Ordered to Cover Expenses of Rita Evacuees

October 10, 2005

  • October 11, 2005 at 5:26 am
    Hal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How about a reading test as part of underwriting? A whole section on double negatives and associated syntax. THAT would take some heat off credit

  • October 11, 2005 at 5:27 am
    Kim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hal must be a plaintiffs attorney

  • October 11, 2005 at 5:31 am
    Hal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No but the whole family is full of attornies. They tried to kill me with grammer when I was little.
    Can you imagine the screaming if there was a reading test for underwriting? Attornies would quit because many could not handle it…
    Syntax, originating from the Greek words σÏ…ν (sun, meaning ‘together’) and ταξις (taxis, meaning sequence/order), can be described as the study of the rules, or “patterned relations” that govern the way the words in a sentence come together.

  • October 11, 2005 at 5:31 am
    Mark says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My point is that Allstate is going about their PR in a very wrong way. They need to explain the differences in the policies and why Texas customers don’t get the payments while Louisiana customers do. Under the Allstate Deluxe home policy, there is coverage for 2 weeks when a neighboring home is damaged due to the storm. This is not the case for Texas, but Allstate has done an extremely poor job of explaining this, to everyone including their agents. I happen to work for Allstate, so I know this. I have friends who are agents in the Houston area that no idea the policies were so different, and they had been telling people that their policies DID have coverage.

    Another issue is that Allstate mentions nothing about how the situation is handled when the property isn’t accessable. There isn’t any way of knowing whether or not there is damage to the house that renders it unlivable, and this will become one of those “ambiguaties” that construe coverage in favor of the insureds. Allstate would do themselves a favor by issuing a long and thought out press release explaining the entire situation, rather than being on the defensive and saying “we disagree, end of story”

    With that being said, Allstate still doesn’t use the Texas form. They use a hybrid of the Texas HO-A form with Allstate’s approved endorsements and coverage extentions. Travelers and American National use the exact form. In fact, Allstate copied Travelers endorsements, so why isn’t anyone complaining about those two companies?

  • October 11, 2005 at 5:32 am
    Hal says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    sorry – the Greek didn’t print.

  • October 11, 2005 at 5:47 am
    Susan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Should Allstate spend more money making announcements as to why they are taking the stand they are taking? Commercials cost money. Allstate should not have to spend money defending a policy that the State approved of.

    As an Agent, I know how difficult it is to keep up with what is and is not covered. Frankly, that is why we have agent advocates to assist us when we have these questions. I don’t have to agree but I don’t have the right to demand payment just because it happened to me. Agents have too many other concerns these days other than trying to understand every circumstance that may occure and how it would be handled. When in doubt, call your claims advocate.

  • October 11, 2005 at 6:25 am
    Chad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I think the important factor being left out here is that the other insurance companies are paying these claims while Allstate is not. If Allstate is right then why is State Farm and Farmers paying these claims? And why did the posting stop at 4:45. Does your employer know they’re paying you to chat on-line?

  • October 11, 2005 at 6:31 am
    JR says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I just talked with a senior person that conformed that 99% of the claims that this relates to are for people that evacuated at the request (or demand) of the local officials and came back to homes that were not damaged at all, but wanted someone to pay the gas and hotel bill because they were told to leave, and in many cases the airline bill. I can not see in any policy language how you can construe that this should or even could be paid when there is no loss to insured property, you must take the intended meaning in to consideration, a homeowners insurance policy is meant to protect the home against covered perils, not pay you for having no damage, but doing what likely could have saved your life, evacuating. Is evacuation a covered peril in Texas, or any other state for that matter. Suck it up and be grateful you still have a home, how many of these claims would be above the hurricane deductible anyway? I think I will sue my cell phone carrier every time I have a dropped call, this is truly lose of use of my phone, and I’ll sue Ford everytime I have to take time to have the oil changed in my gas guzzling SUV, because that is lose of use, and what about when my highspeed internet service is down, my life revolves around that frigging connection, look out Sprint, I’m coming after you for this one.

  • October 11, 2005 at 6:39 am
    Chad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I understand what you are saying JR but I’m just curious what you think. Why is Allstate the only insurance company not paying? Why is Farmers and State Farm paying these claims?

  • October 12, 2005 at 7:58 am
    Suzy Q says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Hi LL,
    IN your post you said,
    [Not sure what kind of agent you are but surely not a homeowners policy agent. You would much prefer that an HO policy pays for flood. I take it you don’t sell flood, has never sold flood, and will never sell flood? You probably think the NFIP is an entirely unnecessary program.]

    So you believe that hurricane coverage does not cover flooding caused by hurricane winds. Last time we checked the storm surge of Katrina was caused by the hurricane winds which at times while the storm was in the Gulf were as high as 175MPH. The storm surge was a direct result of Hurricane Katrina. Please explain what you think a hurricane is and what a policy means when it includes hurricane as a basic covered peril.

    Most companies should and will cover damage caused directly by a covered peril. If the hurricane did not cause the storm surge what did?

    Without mentioning names or slogans, some insurance companies try to weazle out on their car claims too. One company tries to tell other carriers that they owe for contributory damage when their own insured clearly caused and was cited for the accident. Their logic is that your insured should of known that their insured was going to FYROW and turn into the side of their vehicle. That pattern continues with their Katrina /Rita claims. Maybe they need to have reinsurance in place for these events to help them with cat losses.



Add a Comment

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

*