There is already a single adjuster program in place, although it does not always work well. Usually the commercial carriers work their own, independent of the flood adjuster. When independents work the claims, there is usually a fight over who gets the claim. As they are paid per claim handled, when the wind adjuster gets the claim, he wants the flood adjuster to give up his cliam and visa versa. There is supposed to be a rule where one or the other is the controlling factor as to who gets the cliam. Unfortunately, it is very political (the political nature is why I stopped working flood) and difficult as the carriers are strongly tied to their particular independent. The WYO helped some, but there are still insureds with a private wind carrier and the flood written direct with NFIP or another WYO company, rather than through the NFIP.
Flood is a loser unless and actuarialy sound premium is charged. Unfortunately a true premium is unaffordable.
You are mistaken on the position of Trent Lott. His contention, according to all Scruggs has said, is that there was wind damge prior to the flood and he should be compensated for that damage.
Early on Lott was screaming that since the water was wind driven, it was obviously a wind loss, not a flood loss, this after collecting max. available limits under his flood policy.
The Scruggs wind first vs water is a major issue in many other claims (State Farm\’s policy covers wind UNLESS it would have LATER also been caused by flood, then it withdraws the wind cover).
You apparently are confused. Having seen the remains of both Lott\’s and Scruggs\’ homes in person, and knowing both were raised there, they are arguing only the wind came first. BTW, the concurrent causation clause of State Farm has been struck down.
Not the first time I\’ve been confused. Yes, the State Farm clause has been struck down, as well it should be. It was despicable of State Farm to put it in their policies in the first place.
And, how did all but two State Insurance Departments accept it (that info from a State Farm adjuster). Aren\’t they supposed to be watching out for their citizen\’s?
True, I haven\’t seen the Scruggs or Lott slabs, but Lott was one of the first to contend that wind driven water (storm surge) wasn\’t flood, it was wind. After he collected max. available from the NFIP as flood.
This is why I feel NFIP coverage should be an additional peril endorsement to the homeowners policy. If the house is gone, it matters not in the settlement which peril caused it to be gone. The insured gets a check for the total loss (assuming the flood limit is adequate) and the insurer and NFIP argue about the percentage of causation from wind and water.
That would eliminate all this heartache on the part of policyholders (whom we are supposed to be serving!) and certainly show the industry in a much better light than we have now.
I understand the NFIP doesn\’t want coverage by endorsement to the homeowner\’s because they are afraid the insurers will try to push all the loss onto them.
Well, what do they think is happening now? What do they think is the purpose of the State Farm wording?
At least if it\’s an endorsement, instead of competing with insurers for adjusters to get out and handle claims, and having each deny the claim as caused by the other\’s peril, they only need to have people to review the claims and the allocations between perils.
Lott\’s house was rendered a slab. A lot of Scruggs\’ house was left standing. Scruggs\’ house was at least 8 feet higher than Lott\’s house due to a natural ridge along the coast. I have never seen or heard of Scruggs making the wind driven surge argument. I have seen and read many of his interviews. If he represents Lott, then he should have been on the same page as Lott.
Regards flood policies. The major problem with flood is that there is not enough premium collected. Agent gets commission, carrier gets fee for statistical data, and finally adjuster gets fee for working claim. Flood was originally designed to be a catastrophic loss mechanism. It was never intened to be a coverall like HO all risk policies. But, just as HO policies have liberalized over the years, now the flood policy is being atempted to be made into something it was not designed to be. The most readily available example is Social Security. Originaly designed for a supplemental retirement, it now covers so many things it was never meant to cover, it is not financially sound. Flood insurance has NEVER BEEN sound by underwriting standards, always subsidized. Any additional coverage afforded by flood policies would be unsound. I dare say, an actuarially sound premuim for flood would approach 10-15% of total policy limits and if additional limits were to be added, it would probably be closer to 25%.
\”I have never seen or heard of Scruggs making the wind driven surge argument. I have seen and read many of his interviews.\”
OK, let\’s see if you will answer *this* question. What argument did he use to explain the cause of damage to his home? How does it differ from a wind driven surge argument?
level for you Jewel. There is both wind and storm surge/flood associated with a hurricane. The wind comes first and many times causes damages prior to the storm surge. Where you live in Florida hurricanes are relatively dry, not high enough storm surge to get to houses one mile inland as was the case with Katrina. Opal and Erin and Ivan probably as I recall, in the panhandle, had severe storm surge, Andrew had minimal storm surge compared to Katrina, hence the question does not come up as much in Florida. Anyway, first the wind causes damage and then the surge can come ashore. State Farm is denying this wind before the storm surge. The first wind damage is meausred by houses still standing and the type damage they received, above the discernable flood/storm surge line. This is standard payment philosophy in the insurance industry, however, State Farm chose to try to avoid it by putting in concurrent causation language to their policy. Other companies had similar language and knew it would not stand the test of court, which it did not. Simply put, State Farm did as they always do, made their own rules. Facts are that had they gone in and paid for roofs, decking ceilings, etc, they would have paid a lot less and removed themselves from this protracted litigation. If you cannot understand this, I am sorry for you.
By the way, I know all of that information, which is why I was asking you something COMPLETELY different. Did you bother to read my question or were you just ready to spew crap out of your mouth?
I was giving you a chance to show you have a brain in that head of yours, but again, you let me down.
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.
There is already a single adjuster program in place, although it does not always work well. Usually the commercial carriers work their own, independent of the flood adjuster. When independents work the claims, there is usually a fight over who gets the claim. As they are paid per claim handled, when the wind adjuster gets the claim, he wants the flood adjuster to give up his cliam and visa versa. There is supposed to be a rule where one or the other is the controlling factor as to who gets the cliam. Unfortunately, it is very political (the political nature is why I stopped working flood) and difficult as the carriers are strongly tied to their particular independent. The WYO helped some, but there are still insureds with a private wind carrier and the flood written direct with NFIP or another WYO company, rather than through the NFIP.
Flood is a loser unless and actuarialy sound premium is charged. Unfortunately a true premium is unaffordable.
You are mistaken on the position of Trent Lott. His contention, according to all Scruggs has said, is that there was wind damge prior to the flood and he should be compensated for that damage.
Early on Lott was screaming that since the water was wind driven, it was obviously a wind loss, not a flood loss, this after collecting max. available limits under his flood policy.
The Scruggs wind first vs water is a major issue in many other claims (State Farm\’s policy covers wind UNLESS it would have LATER also been caused by flood, then it withdraws the wind cover).
You apparently are confused. Having seen the remains of both Lott\’s and Scruggs\’ homes in person, and knowing both were raised there, they are arguing only the wind came first. BTW, the concurrent causation clause of State Farm has been struck down.
Not the first time I\’ve been confused. Yes, the State Farm clause has been struck down, as well it should be. It was despicable of State Farm to put it in their policies in the first place.
And, how did all but two State Insurance Departments accept it (that info from a State Farm adjuster). Aren\’t they supposed to be watching out for their citizen\’s?
True, I haven\’t seen the Scruggs or Lott slabs, but Lott was one of the first to contend that wind driven water (storm surge) wasn\’t flood, it was wind. After he collected max. available from the NFIP as flood.
This is why I feel NFIP coverage should be an additional peril endorsement to the homeowners policy. If the house is gone, it matters not in the settlement which peril caused it to be gone. The insured gets a check for the total loss (assuming the flood limit is adequate) and the insurer and NFIP argue about the percentage of causation from wind and water.
That would eliminate all this heartache on the part of policyholders (whom we are supposed to be serving!) and certainly show the industry in a much better light than we have now.
I understand the NFIP doesn\’t want coverage by endorsement to the homeowner\’s because they are afraid the insurers will try to push all the loss onto them.
Well, what do they think is happening now? What do they think is the purpose of the State Farm wording?
At least if it\’s an endorsement, instead of competing with insurers for adjusters to get out and handle claims, and having each deny the claim as caused by the other\’s peril, they only need to have people to review the claims and the allocations between perils.
Lott\’s house was rendered a slab. A lot of Scruggs\’ house was left standing. Scruggs\’ house was at least 8 feet higher than Lott\’s house due to a natural ridge along the coast. I have never seen or heard of Scruggs making the wind driven surge argument. I have seen and read many of his interviews. If he represents Lott, then he should have been on the same page as Lott.
Regards flood policies. The major problem with flood is that there is not enough premium collected. Agent gets commission, carrier gets fee for statistical data, and finally adjuster gets fee for working claim. Flood was originally designed to be a catastrophic loss mechanism. It was never intened to be a coverall like HO all risk policies. But, just as HO policies have liberalized over the years, now the flood policy is being atempted to be made into something it was not designed to be. The most readily available example is Social Security. Originaly designed for a supplemental retirement, it now covers so many things it was never meant to cover, it is not financially sound. Flood insurance has NEVER BEEN sound by underwriting standards, always subsidized. Any additional coverage afforded by flood policies would be unsound. I dare say, an actuarially sound premuim for flood would approach 10-15% of total policy limits and if additional limits were to be added, it would probably be closer to 25%.
\”I have never seen or heard of Scruggs making the wind driven surge argument. I have seen and read many of his interviews.\”
OK, let\’s see if you will answer *this* question. What argument did he use to explain the cause of damage to his home? How does it differ from a wind driven surge argument?
And commence answering my question!
level for you Jewel. There is both wind and storm surge/flood associated with a hurricane. The wind comes first and many times causes damages prior to the storm surge. Where you live in Florida hurricanes are relatively dry, not high enough storm surge to get to houses one mile inland as was the case with Katrina. Opal and Erin and Ivan probably as I recall, in the panhandle, had severe storm surge, Andrew had minimal storm surge compared to Katrina, hence the question does not come up as much in Florida. Anyway, first the wind causes damage and then the surge can come ashore. State Farm is denying this wind before the storm surge. The first wind damage is meausred by houses still standing and the type damage they received, above the discernable flood/storm surge line. This is standard payment philosophy in the insurance industry, however, State Farm chose to try to avoid it by putting in concurrent causation language to their policy. Other companies had similar language and knew it would not stand the test of court, which it did not. Simply put, State Farm did as they always do, made their own rules. Facts are that had they gone in and paid for roofs, decking ceilings, etc, they would have paid a lot less and removed themselves from this protracted litigation. If you cannot understand this, I am sorry for you.
wow, you put that on such an elementary level that you DIDN\’T BOTHER TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.
By the way, I know all of that information, which is why I was asking you something COMPLETELY different. Did you bother to read my question or were you just ready to spew crap out of your mouth?
I was giving you a chance to show you have a brain in that head of yours, but again, you let me down.
Your mom must be so proud of you!
the stupidest person on the face of the Earth. I directly answered the question and you cannot comprehend. He is arguing only for the 1st wind damage.