There is a bigger implication here. If a court can order a policy to be broadened after it is written, then no contract is protection.
Your job contract can be broadened to including washing the bosses car and cleaning out his garage…..even if you thought your job was accounting.
By-the-way, we in the U.S. spent more money on lawsuits than research and development. Is there any wonder why the Chinese are on track to pass us by economically and militarily and we think it’s bad that we have to beg people who would rather see us dead to give a a good price on oil?
We’ll be doing the same begging for food from the Chinese.
LET’S ALL GET TOGETHER WHEN ALLSTATE FINISHES WITH US AND CANCEL ALL POLICIES WITH THEM FOR A CHANGE–MY HOME WAS DEEMED HABITABLE (BY PHONE) EVEN THOUGH THE ELECTRIC LINE WAS DOWN ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY; NO POWER FOR US MEANS NO WATER EITHER, WE HAVE A WELL. HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITHOUT WATER? NO ONE FROM ALLSTATE HAS CONTACTED US, WE DO ALL THE CALLING–WE ENDED UP WITH ALLSTATE WHEN OUR INSURANCE AGENT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND OUR MORTGAGE COMPANY OBTAINED INSURANCE WITH ALLSTATE–WE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED BUT DID NOT AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO PAY A PRICE FOR THAT MISTAKE–ALLSTATE HAS ALWAYS HAD A BAD REPUTATION–EVEN WHEN I WAS YOUNG (A LONG TIME AGO) PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT BEING CANCELLED BY ALLSTATE IF YOU EVER FILED A CLAIM. IF THERE IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT, WE WILL BE PART OF IT–ALL THE PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE ARE BEING REIMBURSED FOR BEING DISPLACED AND ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BEING EXTREMELY GENEROUS–FOREMOST, HOECHEIM PRAIRIE, FARM BUREAU–I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH ALLSTATE–WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO INSPECT OUR ROOF–OR A PROFESSIONAL ROOFER–WE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT BUT IT WILL BE WORTH IT–HURRICANE RITA DEVASTATED THE PINEY WOODS OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND ALLSTATE IS GOING TO DEVASTATE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
Seems to me that Don said it best. (See re-post below).
So many people keep saying “read the policy,” but often it is those within the industry that do not look at the words but simply assume things based on their past experience, expectations, etc. They sometimes need reading (and re-reading) lessons as much as anyone.
A policyholder deserves to get the benefits as stated in the contract. If the contract is not in plain English, what is a policyholder supposed to do? Yes, those familiar with other forms in other states know that ALE coverage ususally specifies that the unihabitability must be caused by a loss covered by the policy, which means a covered loss to covered property. But that is NOT what the Texas forms (HO-A and HO-B) say. They make the trigger a loss caused by a Peril Insured Against — no mention of property at all, no mention of insured premises, no mention of actions by civil authority, not mention of ingress or egress — just a loss (undefined) by a covered peril. So why it is so strange that a lay person reading the policy would think that there need not be any loss to covered property and that they get ALE coverage until the damage to non-covered property is repaired to the point that the policyholder’s home become inhabitable? Seems to me that is what the policy “says” or could be reasonably read to say.
So, yes, it does seem absurd from the insurer’s perspective to give broad coverage that could be interpreted as giving ALE whenever an insured peril takes out power or causes roads to be blocked — especially without an additional premium. And yes, for one reason or another, many Texas insurers have found themselves stuck with Texas form language (either because another form was not approved by the TD or — could it also be? — that they never READ the old Texas form language carefully and thought about how broadly it might be interpreted by ordinary people?).
I do hate to see Allstate or any other insurer stuck with paying huge losses they did not anticipate, but it does seem unreasonable to expect policyholders to just understand and accept what the insurer meant to say and when what they see in print does not seem to say anything like what they are being told. And if you read down this thread, you will find plenty of company claims personnel and agents who don’t know all the differences among forms, especially from Texas. Maybe it is a lot for them to sort out, as well, but if the the folks in the industry don’t know, how can you blame the policyholders for not knowing better?
Anyway, below is Don’s post again. And for those who want to READ the relevant documents (the TRO and the TDI’s petition for relief, which includes a full copy of a Texas HO-A at the end) see http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/talk.html#update6
which has links to pdf files of the documents.
Don posted:
“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!”
The Texas forms have been around for a long time, at least since the 1970’s and maybe as long as the ISO HO-3. There are many differences in the language and structure simply because they originated with different drafters. Also, I suspect that the language hasn’t been changed or reviewed as much as ISO and company forms have over the years. Consequently, they may contain more language that is vague or simply not interpreted that often, either by adjusters or the courts. As I understand it, that is what brought about the mold claims crisis in Texas — some oddly worded language in the ensuing loss clause that followed the mold exclusion (and some oddly thinking judges who read it as giving back coverage for mold). Unlike the ensuing loss clause, however, the ALE section may be truly ambiguous.
What would our grandparents have thought about people expecting to be paid to leave their house because they were in jeopardy of DEATH if they stayed. How fortunate for them that they suffered no or little damage to their homes. Exactly how much could these scabs expect to get, I assume the hurricane deductibles will apply.
God help humanity and help them to once again learn to take care of themselves and take precautions against loss of life without being paid to do so.
Regarding: “LET’S ALL GET TOGETHER WHEN ALLSTATE FINISHES WITH US AND CANCEL ALL POLICIES WITH THEM FOR A CHANGE–MY HOME WAS DEEMED HABITABLE (BY PHONE) EVEN THOUGH THE ELECTRIC LINE WAS DOWN ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY; NO POWER FOR US MEANS NO WATER EITHER, WE HAVE A WELL. HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITHOUT WATER? NO ONE FROM ALLSTATE HAS CONTACTED US, WE DO ALL THE CALLING–WE ENDED UP WITH ALLSTATE WHEN OUR INSURANCE AGENT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND OUR MORTGAGE COMPANY OBTAINED INSURANCE WITH ALLSTATE–WE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED BUT DID NOT AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO PAY A PRICE FOR THAT MISTAKE–ALLSTATE HAS ALWAYS HAD A BAD REPUTATION–EVEN WHEN I WAS YOUNG (A LONG TIME AGO) PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT BEING CANCELLED BY ALLSTATE IF YOU EVER FILED A CLAIM. IF THERE IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT, WE WILL BE PART OF IT–ALL THE PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE ARE BEING REIMBURSED FOR BEING DISPLACED AND ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BEING EXTREMELY GENEROUS–FOREMOST, HOECHEIM PRAIRIE, FARM BUREAU–I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH ALLSTATE–WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO INSPECT OUR ROOF–OR A PROFESSIONAL ROOFER–WE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT BUT IT WILL BE WORTH IT–HURRICANE RITA DEVASTATED THE PINEY WOODS OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND ALLSTATE IS GOING TO DEVASTATE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.”
If your mortgage company procured the insurance, it’s possible that it was on a “forced placed” basis which means that you’re paying FAR more than you could procuring your own insurance in the marketplace.
Don’t blame Allstate…by your apparent ignorance and laziness, you’ve allowed yourself to get in this predicament.
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.
I couldn’t of said it better myself!
There is a bigger implication here. If a court can order a policy to be broadened after it is written, then no contract is protection.
Your job contract can be broadened to including washing the bosses car and cleaning out his garage…..even if you thought your job was accounting.
By-the-way, we in the U.S. spent more money on lawsuits than research and development. Is there any wonder why the Chinese are on track to pass us by economically and militarily and we think it’s bad that we have to beg people who would rather see us dead to give a a good price on oil?
We’ll be doing the same begging for food from the Chinese.
I think you posted to the wrong article, you might want to go to the Katrina article.
Nope, it applies to this article….it also applies to Katrina as well.
LET’S ALL GET TOGETHER WHEN ALLSTATE FINISHES WITH US AND CANCEL ALL POLICIES WITH THEM FOR A CHANGE–MY HOME WAS DEEMED HABITABLE (BY PHONE) EVEN THOUGH THE ELECTRIC LINE WAS DOWN ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY; NO POWER FOR US MEANS NO WATER EITHER, WE HAVE A WELL. HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITHOUT WATER? NO ONE FROM ALLSTATE HAS CONTACTED US, WE DO ALL THE CALLING–WE ENDED UP WITH ALLSTATE WHEN OUR INSURANCE AGENT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND OUR MORTGAGE COMPANY OBTAINED INSURANCE WITH ALLSTATE–WE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED BUT DID NOT AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO PAY A PRICE FOR THAT MISTAKE–ALLSTATE HAS ALWAYS HAD A BAD REPUTATION–EVEN WHEN I WAS YOUNG (A LONG TIME AGO) PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT BEING CANCELLED BY ALLSTATE IF YOU EVER FILED A CLAIM. IF THERE IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT, WE WILL BE PART OF IT–ALL THE PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE ARE BEING REIMBURSED FOR BEING DISPLACED AND ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BEING EXTREMELY GENEROUS–FOREMOST, HOECHEIM PRAIRIE, FARM BUREAU–I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH ALLSTATE–WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO INSPECT OUR ROOF–OR A PROFESSIONAL ROOFER–WE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT BUT IT WILL BE WORTH IT–HURRICANE RITA DEVASTATED THE PINEY WOODS OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND ALLSTATE IS GOING TO DEVASTATE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
Seems to me that Don said it best. (See re-post below).
So many people keep saying “read the policy,” but often it is those within the industry that do not look at the words but simply assume things based on their past experience, expectations, etc. They sometimes need reading (and re-reading) lessons as much as anyone.
A policyholder deserves to get the benefits as stated in the contract. If the contract is not in plain English, what is a policyholder supposed to do? Yes, those familiar with other forms in other states know that ALE coverage ususally specifies that the unihabitability must be caused by a loss covered by the policy, which means a covered loss to covered property. But that is NOT what the Texas forms (HO-A and HO-B) say. They make the trigger a loss caused by a Peril Insured Against — no mention of property at all, no mention of insured premises, no mention of actions by civil authority, not mention of ingress or egress — just a loss (undefined) by a covered peril. So why it is so strange that a lay person reading the policy would think that there need not be any loss to covered property and that they get ALE coverage until the damage to non-covered property is repaired to the point that the policyholder’s home become inhabitable? Seems to me that is what the policy “says” or could be reasonably read to say.
So, yes, it does seem absurd from the insurer’s perspective to give broad coverage that could be interpreted as giving ALE whenever an insured peril takes out power or causes roads to be blocked — especially without an additional premium. And yes, for one reason or another, many Texas insurers have found themselves stuck with Texas form language (either because another form was not approved by the TD or — could it also be? — that they never READ the old Texas form language carefully and thought about how broadly it might be interpreted by ordinary people?).
I do hate to see Allstate or any other insurer stuck with paying huge losses they did not anticipate, but it does seem unreasonable to expect policyholders to just understand and accept what the insurer meant to say and when what they see in print does not seem to say anything like what they are being told. And if you read down this thread, you will find plenty of company claims personnel and agents who don’t know all the differences among forms, especially from Texas. Maybe it is a lot for them to sort out, as well, but if the the folks in the industry don’t know, how can you blame the policyholders for not knowing better?
Anyway, below is Don’s post again. And for those who want to READ the relevant documents (the TRO and the TDI’s petition for relief, which includes a full copy of a Texas HO-A at the end) see http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/talk.html#update6
which has links to pdf files of the documents.
Don posted:
“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!”
Did the TDI create this confusion to begin with? Is the ISO HO3 form not good enough for Texas?
The Texas forms have been around for a long time, at least since the 1970’s and maybe as long as the ISO HO-3. There are many differences in the language and structure simply because they originated with different drafters. Also, I suspect that the language hasn’t been changed or reviewed as much as ISO and company forms have over the years. Consequently, they may contain more language that is vague or simply not interpreted that often, either by adjusters or the courts. As I understand it, that is what brought about the mold claims crisis in Texas — some oddly worded language in the ensuing loss clause that followed the mold exclusion (and some oddly thinking judges who read it as giving back coverage for mold). Unlike the ensuing loss clause, however, the ALE section may be truly ambiguous.
What would our grandparents have thought about people expecting to be paid to leave their house because they were in jeopardy of DEATH if they stayed. How fortunate for them that they suffered no or little damage to their homes. Exactly how much could these scabs expect to get, I assume the hurricane deductibles will apply.
God help humanity and help them to once again learn to take care of themselves and take precautions against loss of life without being paid to do so.
Regarding: “LET’S ALL GET TOGETHER WHEN ALLSTATE FINISHES WITH US AND CANCEL ALL POLICIES WITH THEM FOR A CHANGE–MY HOME WAS DEEMED HABITABLE (BY PHONE) EVEN THOUGH THE ELECTRIC LINE WAS DOWN ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY; NO POWER FOR US MEANS NO WATER EITHER, WE HAVE A WELL. HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITHOUT WATER? NO ONE FROM ALLSTATE HAS CONTACTED US, WE DO ALL THE CALLING–WE ENDED UP WITH ALLSTATE WHEN OUR INSURANCE AGENT WENT OUT OF BUSINESS AND OUR MORTGAGE COMPANY OBTAINED INSURANCE WITH ALLSTATE–WE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED BUT DID NOT AND NOW WE ARE GOING TO PAY A PRICE FOR THAT MISTAKE–ALLSTATE HAS ALWAYS HAD A BAD REPUTATION–EVEN WHEN I WAS YOUNG (A LONG TIME AGO) PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT BEING CANCELLED BY ALLSTATE IF YOU EVER FILED A CLAIM. IF THERE IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT, WE WILL BE PART OF IT–ALL THE PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE ARE BEING REIMBURSED FOR BEING DISPLACED AND ALL THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE BEING EXTREMELY GENEROUS–FOREMOST, HOECHEIM PRAIRIE, FARM BUREAU–I AM THE ONLY ONE WITH ALLSTATE–WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO INSPECT OUR ROOF–OR A PROFESSIONAL ROOFER–WE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT BUT IT WILL BE WORTH IT–HURRICANE RITA DEVASTATED THE PINEY WOODS OF SOUTHEAST TEXAS AND ALLSTATE IS GOING TO DEVASTATE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.”
If your mortgage company procured the insurance, it’s possible that it was on a “forced placed” basis which means that you’re paying FAR more than you could procuring your own insurance in the marketplace.
Don’t blame Allstate…by your apparent ignorance and laziness, you’ve allowed yourself to get in this predicament.