LL is right. I forgot, the ones who don\’t buy it are the ones who aren\’t in flood plains, the mortgagee doesn\’t require it, so they go bare.
The client I was talking about is a large car dealer with over $70,000,000 in building and contents but, being at an elevation of 3 ft and .6 miles from the beach, they are not in a flood plain, and, anyway, they don\’t have any of the buildings mortgaged.
Is it just me, or should this article tell what the value of this home is? Valued at $395k looks like he did fine, valued at $750k I would be suing too!
I agree with you on that one JW. I have been asking myself the same question since this trial started. It will be interesting however to see what Mr. Weiss says in cross-exam by Allstate\’s counsel on the boat house that they claimed was damaged, and then later found not to exist on the property. I know this information if not in this story, but I have been following this trial in other publications, etc. Have a nice day!
This is the same argument Trent Lott is using. He knew flood wasn\’t covered under his homeowners policy, because he bought the separate NFIP flood policy, but not enough.
The homeowner\’s policy had a higher limit than the flood policy.
So, for the purpose of the flood claim, it was rising water, not wind driven water. Sounds like he collected policy limits under the flood policy.
But, so he can try to collect under his homeowners as well, now it\’s not \”rising water\” but \”wind driven water\”.
Is it the insurance company\’s fault he purchased too little flood coverage?
No. It\’s the policyholders fault, it is there responsibility to make sure they are adequately insured.
One way to alleviate the problem is to make flood coverage via the NFIP an endorsement to the homeowners policy, separately reinsured back to the NFIP.
Increase the amount available from NFIP and require the flood endorsement limit to be the same as the homeowners limit (up to the limit of the program).
One adjuster, adjusting all the loss. Then it\’s up to the insurer to work out the allocation with it\’s reinsurers. That\’s still a problem, but it takes the homeowner out of the debate.
Until Congress comes to it\’s senses, stops pilloring the insurance industry and makes the suggested changes, at least try to get the flood and homeowners with the same insurer.
Of course, if Congress were really interested in protecting us poor homeowners they would institute these changes, but a few with \”special causes\” get far more mileage for constantly berating the insurance industry.
Chad, good to see your name again. You missed a lot of interesting posts in the last couple of days, or maybe you chose not to step into the fray.
As to the Allstate case, the property owners alleged damage to a boat house on their property. During inspection, Allstate found that the boat house in question was never on the Weiss\’ property, and in fact was on a neighboring property. Allstate was seeking to have the policy voided, and filed a summary judgement motion prior to trial. The motion was not successful, and thus the trial started.
This is the same issue that came up in a prior LA/Allstate case. When the judge in that case advised the homeowner that he was going to give a jury instruction on presumption that the homeowner had committed misrepresentation, the homeowner dismissed the case. I cannot recall the name of that case right now.
I suspect in the Weiss case, even though the judge did not dismiss it, if there is evidence to support Allstate\’s position, the jury will be instructed.
It would be interesting to know the value of the home…perhaps the Weiss\’ family has already been fully indemnified?
Yep Sam….without knowing the value of home, first impression looks like someone\’s trying to do a little double dipping. Maybe got his hand caught in the candy jar with the boat house issue. Ouch!
my employer offers excess flood, as well as flood covg for those who do not qualify for the national program; I prefer not to name them, but we do cater to the upper end of the market.
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.
Everyone (unless in COBRA zones) is eligible for NFIP, especially those not in the 100 year plain. They can buy rediculously cheap Preferred policies.
LL is right. I forgot, the ones who don\’t buy it are the ones who aren\’t in flood plains, the mortgagee doesn\’t require it, so they go bare.
The client I was talking about is a large car dealer with over $70,000,000 in building and contents but, being at an elevation of 3 ft and .6 miles from the beach, they are not in a flood plain, and, anyway, they don\’t have any of the buildings mortgaged.
Is it just me, or should this article tell what the value of this home is? Valued at $395k looks like he did fine, valued at $750k I would be suing too!
I agree with you on that one JW. I have been asking myself the same question since this trial started. It will be interesting however to see what Mr. Weiss says in cross-exam by Allstate\’s counsel on the boat house that they claimed was damaged, and then later found not to exist on the property. I know this information if not in this story, but I have been following this trial in other publications, etc. Have a nice day!
This is the same argument Trent Lott is using. He knew flood wasn\’t covered under his homeowners policy, because he bought the separate NFIP flood policy, but not enough.
The homeowner\’s policy had a higher limit than the flood policy.
So, for the purpose of the flood claim, it was rising water, not wind driven water. Sounds like he collected policy limits under the flood policy.
But, so he can try to collect under his homeowners as well, now it\’s not \”rising water\” but \”wind driven water\”.
Is it the insurance company\’s fault he purchased too little flood coverage?
No. It\’s the policyholders fault, it is there responsibility to make sure they are adequately insured.
One way to alleviate the problem is to make flood coverage via the NFIP an endorsement to the homeowners policy, separately reinsured back to the NFIP.
Increase the amount available from NFIP and require the flood endorsement limit to be the same as the homeowners limit (up to the limit of the program).
One adjuster, adjusting all the loss. Then it\’s up to the insurer to work out the allocation with it\’s reinsurers. That\’s still a problem, but it takes the homeowner out of the debate.
Until Congress comes to it\’s senses, stops pilloring the insurance industry and makes the suggested changes, at least try to get the flood and homeowners with the same insurer.
Of course, if Congress were really interested in protecting us poor homeowners they would institute these changes, but a few with \”special causes\” get far more mileage for constantly berating the insurance industry.
These 2 questions are for anyone who wants to answer them.
What is the limit you can insure with the NFIP?
Explain excess flood coverage and where it is obtained?
Many Thanks,
A Texas agent
but it isn\’t cheap. I imagine the premium probably looks like a better deal now, though.
Sam, please give us updates as the IJ is famous for leaving useful details out…
Chad, good to see your name again. You missed a lot of interesting posts in the last couple of days, or maybe you chose not to step into the fray.
As to the Allstate case, the property owners alleged damage to a boat house on their property. During inspection, Allstate found that the boat house in question was never on the Weiss\’ property, and in fact was on a neighboring property. Allstate was seeking to have the policy voided, and filed a summary judgement motion prior to trial. The motion was not successful, and thus the trial started.
This is the same issue that came up in a prior LA/Allstate case. When the judge in that case advised the homeowner that he was going to give a jury instruction on presumption that the homeowner had committed misrepresentation, the homeowner dismissed the case. I cannot recall the name of that case right now.
I suspect in the Weiss case, even though the judge did not dismiss it, if there is evidence to support Allstate\’s position, the jury will be instructed.
It would be interesting to know the value of the home…perhaps the Weiss\’ family has already been fully indemnified?
Yep Sam….without knowing the value of home, first impression looks like someone\’s trying to do a little double dipping. Maybe got his hand caught in the candy jar with the boat house issue. Ouch!
my employer offers excess flood, as well as flood covg for those who do not qualify for the national program; I prefer not to name them, but we do cater to the upper end of the market.