\”So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded.\”
Sounds like water ALONE did not play a solo role in affecting the strucutre.
No wind [cause] = no structural movement [effect]…per your example.
It\’s not about trying to get something for nothing Mark. It\’s about setting egos aside, and then thinking and reasoning on serious matters.
Take a look at your statement again;
\”So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded.\”
Water rising [cause] does not necessarily mean that the eventuality of the rising water event [affected] structure is going to ensue into house movement.
Rising water [anticipated excluded coverage \”cause\”] loosened things up, but structure can remain in place until [anticipated included covered \”cause\”] wind creates the actual additional / final damage movement effect.
Again, no wind involvement – influence, no structural movement. (Per your scenario).
P.S. Did the policy say \’All ensuing damage per rising / tidal water includes wind pushing the structure off of soggy ground\’?
(There might have a problem with that fuzzy logic).
Or was \’ensuing damage\’ referring to commonly understood stand alone water damage, without wind involvement?
Homes on slabs and piers may very well not have had movement damage unless/until wind affected the structure.
Water only created the potential OPPORTUNITY for wind to affect the structure, NOT the actual wind pressure that produced it\’s own ensuing damage results.
Flood water did not create the kinetic force, that wind alone produced, that was reponsible for PUSHING/MOVING the structure.
It just made the winds\’ damaging role easier to accomplish.
Two separate causes, two separate effects, two separate forms of coverage.
Wind did it\’s (covered) thing. It affected / damaged the structure per it\’s inherent ability.
I must admire Judge Haik. Admitting that he\’s not a great fan of insurance companies but still ruling that the insurance contract spelled out what the covered perils are and people shouldn\’t expect to get coverage they didn\’t pay for. An honest and unbiased (as far as his decision went) judge is refreshing.
Since rising water does not have the same kinetic force as sudden tidal surge impact, structures underwater, or dried out, may retain wind damage \”evidence\” waiting to be discovered.
If any structures\’ components ballooned outward, or shifted / racked, or lost construction material from winds pulling and pushing, or wind borne debris projectiles / missiles broke construction components or other covered property, and non-flood water/rain damage was also present, then those issues need fair indemnificsation consideration….no?
Common high wind damage, dismissed as flood damage, would not serve the general public\’s good.
Too, insurers and adjusters who distort downward (low-balling / deceptive trade practice) fair and rational reconstructiion procedures and costs, in a cat or non-cat market, is the next thing to track regionally.
Or is it already being tracked and recorded, in the trenches by consumers and contractors, and at claim managers\’ desks?
The policy excludes damage from title surge WHETHER OR NOT DRIVEN BY WATER, and ANY damage that ensues from this water. So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded. Sorry, should have paid for flood insurance. I have a hard time believing people think of all these \”scenarios\” as a reason not to buy flood insurance. Pure and simple, they\’re too cheap to, and now it has come around to bite them, and they\’re trying to think of these creative reasons their home policy would be used to cover flood damage.
I guess we are going to have to fall back on the courts on this one – oh, seems to me the courts are agreeing that the flooding did cause the damage. Gee, guess all the fancy twisted logic is for naught…
roger, it doesn\’t matter how you want to disect the forensics of how the house was damaged. The only thing that matters is how the policy is written. And that means the roof is covered for wind blowing off the shingles, but the bottom part, weakened by water, is covered by flood insurance. That\’s just how it is, and it has everything to do with not being properly covered. Hurricanes cause WIND and FLOOD (storm surge, but it\’s still rising water caused by the wind blowing it against the shore, still excluded). If people wanted to be covered fully against hurricanes, they should have bought coverage for those two things. wind AND flood.
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.
5-22-2006
Mark,
Isn\’t it–\’whether or not driven by WIND\’?
Too,
\”So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded.\”
Sounds like water ALONE did not play a solo role in affecting the strucutre.
No wind [cause] = no structural movement [effect]…per your example.
It\’s not about trying to get something for nothing Mark. It\’s about setting egos aside, and then thinking and reasoning on serious matters.
Take a look at your statement again;
\”So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded.\”
Water rising [cause] does not necessarily mean that the eventuality of the rising water event [affected] structure is going to ensue into house movement.
Rising water [anticipated excluded coverage \”cause\”] loosened things up, but structure can remain in place until [anticipated included covered \”cause\”] wind creates the actual additional / final damage movement effect.
Again, no wind involvement – influence, no structural movement. (Per your scenario).
Just a thought.
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
P.S. Did the policy say \’All ensuing damage per rising / tidal water includes wind pushing the structure off of soggy ground\’?
(There might have a problem with that fuzzy logic).
Or was \’ensuing damage\’ referring to commonly understood stand alone water damage, without wind involvement?
Homes on slabs and piers may very well not have had movement damage unless/until wind affected the structure.
Water only created the potential OPPORTUNITY for wind to affect the structure, NOT the actual wind pressure that produced it\’s own ensuing damage results.
Flood water did not create the kinetic force, that wind alone produced, that was reponsible for PUSHING/MOVING the structure.
It just made the winds\’ damaging role easier to accomplish.
Two separate causes, two separate effects, two separate forms of coverage.
Wind did it\’s (covered) thing. It affected / damaged the structure per it\’s inherent ability.
No?
Well Roger, go ahead and launch into your next diatribe…let the pontification begin!
I must admire Judge Haik. Admitting that he\’s not a great fan of insurance companies but still ruling that the insurance contract spelled out what the covered perils are and people shouldn\’t expect to get coverage they didn\’t pay for. An honest and unbiased (as far as his decision went) judge is refreshing.
5-22-2006
CTC,
If specifically defined [flood] loss scenarios are not covered, then they are not covered. That has always seemed reasonable to conclude.
But causual-chain-of-events / coverage by proxy, alway\’s needs to be fairly considered too…no?
Then too, there is the anticipated windstorm loss damage computer modeling thing to consider…
http://www.casact.org/pubs/proceed/proceed97/97001.pdf
What came first, wind damage or flood damage.
Since rising water does not have the same kinetic force as sudden tidal surge impact, structures underwater, or dried out, may retain wind damage \”evidence\” waiting to be discovered.
If any structures\’ components ballooned outward, or shifted / racked, or lost construction material from winds pulling and pushing, or wind borne debris projectiles / missiles broke construction components or other covered property, and non-flood water/rain damage was also present, then those issues need fair indemnificsation consideration….no?
Common high wind damage, dismissed as flood damage, would not serve the general public\’s good.
Too, insurers and adjusters who distort downward (low-balling / deceptive trade practice) fair and rational reconstructiion procedures and costs, in a cat or non-cat market, is the next thing to track regionally.
Or is it already being tracked and recorded, in the trenches by consumers and contractors, and at claim managers\’ desks?
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
I completely agree-I just knew this article would bring you out…didn\’t take long!!
5-22-2006
CTC,
Not really sure what your point is, but…ok.
The policy excludes damage from title surge WHETHER OR NOT DRIVEN BY WATER, and ANY damage that ensues from this water. So, water rises, wind pushed the house because of the water, ensueing loss that is excluded. Sorry, should have paid for flood insurance. I have a hard time believing people think of all these \”scenarios\” as a reason not to buy flood insurance. Pure and simple, they\’re too cheap to, and now it has come around to bite them, and they\’re trying to think of these creative reasons their home policy would be used to cover flood damage.
I guess we are going to have to fall back on the courts on this one – oh, seems to me the courts are agreeing that the flooding did cause the damage. Gee, guess all the fancy twisted logic is for naught…
5-23-2006
Ray,
So, what exactly was \’twisted\’ on previous commentary?
rogerpoegc@yahoo.com
roger, it doesn\’t matter how you want to disect the forensics of how the house was damaged. The only thing that matters is how the policy is written. And that means the roof is covered for wind blowing off the shingles, but the bottom part, weakened by water, is covered by flood insurance. That\’s just how it is, and it has everything to do with not being properly covered. Hurricanes cause WIND and FLOOD (storm surge, but it\’s still rising water caused by the wind blowing it against the shore, still excluded). If people wanted to be covered fully against hurricanes, they should have bought coverage for those two things. wind AND flood.