Another Katrina Levee Failure Case Before La. Appeals Court

September 14, 2007

  • September 14, 2007 at 2:01 am
    temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    How many more times are they going to beat the same dead horse?

    It’s unfortunate these people didn’t buy flood insurance, but it’s been known for years that flood wasn’t covered under a standard property or homeowners policy. It’s usually declared in bold face type on homeowner’s policies. Court decisions back to the ’60’s have all upheld the flood exclusions.

    If it weren’t for greedy lawyers hopeing to somehow score a victory and make millions for themselves, this issue would be laid to rest.

    According to FEMA, a large percentage of people who took out flood for the first time after Katrina, have not renewed their policies. It’s their decision, and no one else is to blame if they get flooded.

  • September 14, 2007 at 2:22 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Is anyone surprised the judge “sided” with a 91 year old Jewish Holocaust survivor? Think of the public PR backlash telling him the truth and ruling agains him would have caused. The judge copped out and sent it to another court to “decide”. By all counts the court should rule in favor of the insurance company but………..this is LA, home of some of the most unscrupulous politicians, attorneys, and judges on the planet. Stay tuned. You have to wonder what this 91 year old guy was thinking by staying in his aparment and not evacuating. Would have been a real tragedy if he survived the Holocaust only to drown in a flood.

  • September 14, 2007 at 2:41 am
    ad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What the heck does his being 91 and a holocaust survivor have to do with anything?

    What the heck does the policy contract need to look like if we need to include things like “an exclusion for levee failure.” Maybe we need to eliminate the All risk policy, and exclude everything EXCEPT….

    Figures that Foti backs the insured/thief. I sure hope the State of Louisiana doesn’t continue to be disgraced by goofball voters that consider voting him back into office.

  • September 14, 2007 at 2:58 am
    sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    to see if a LA state court comes up with a different result than the Federal Court of Appeals came up with in 2 other cases. Time will tell.

  • September 14, 2007 at 3:05 am
    Claims Guy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    ad: I think Dread was pointing out the sympathy factor that has tendency to play into things. It wasn’t just his age, but the fact he endured so much during his life and is now portrayed as the victim………again.

  • September 14, 2007 at 6:55 am
    The Jury's no better says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Just look at the award. OK, so he had it bad in the past & the world is sorry for him, but this is over the top. Would have liked to been in the deliberation room on this one.

  • September 17, 2007 at 9:04 am
    Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m just wondering if anyone is aware of a website that has copies of policy contracts. I’ve poured over HO contracts from several companies over the years and never saw this ambiguity. I’d love to see a copy of one of these contested contracts.



Add a Comment

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

*