gg: Re: your statement….
“It seems to me that the plaintifs have to prove by a proponderance of evidence that the water first brought down the house before the wind blew hard enough to bring it down.”
Don’t you just have it reversed? It’s incumbent upon the plaintif policyholder to prove that the wind blew it down before the “surge” of water hit it.
As much as people love to hate insurance companies, It’s time to take a good look at was agreed to in the contract. The homeowner policy very clearly excludes rising water. That is what the intent of the policy authors and that is what it was priced for acuarily. In the absence of clear physical evidence or eye witness testimony, that wind caused this damage, this case should be ruled in favor of State Farm. If all of the debries was blown or even washed away, how can a fair minded judge or jury rule any other way? It seems to me that the plaintifs have to prove by a proponderance of evidence that the water first brought down the house before the wind blew hard enough to bring it down. I don’t think they can do it. As usual though the verdict will likely be based on the presumed guilt of the insurance company. I hope not!
Historically, courts have ruled in favor of the insured whenever it is reasonable to assume that the peril is covered in their policy. Carriers know this and should be prepared to prove to the court that the insured’s claim is unreasonble and doubtful if they expect to get a favorable ruling. In this case, the insured has a good argument that wind that was the primary cause of loss. New Orleans is a great example for the court to use. New Orleans caught the backside of the hurricane so, most of the damage was caused by flood waters when the levies broke. The houses are still there but, damaged by the flood waters. This is not the situation with the case under discussion. There is very little left of this insured’s home. True, the flood waters may have weakened the structure but, most of house is gone – blown away. The carrier has a very weak case in this situation.
Like the mold claims of a few years back, I think that we will see the development of new policy forms to cover both wind and water. Another possibility would be to extend coverage under either the wind or flood policies to include storm surges – wind driven water.
Bottom line – look at the damage assessment. The description of the damage appears to be caused by wind. The carrier will have the burden of proof that the house floated away!
To add to the discussion, and respond to the one or two persons who posted what I perceived as unkind remarks earlier, what are you? Cold-hearted cynics? Or just terribly misinformed?
You certainly weren’t at the trial where the uncontradicted expert evidence was that hurricane force winds pounded the Kodrin home for HOURS before any flood waters touched it.
Even the defense expert had NO explanation for how the Kodrin home roof ended up 1000 feet across the road from the slab, having ended up in the same direction of earlier top-sustained winds, which arrived long BEFORE any significant flood waters arrived. And when significant flood waters did arrive, they may have only reached between TWO AND FIVE FEET up the walls of the Kodrin home, State Farm’s climatologist had to concede on cross-exam. And, once the flood waters did get deep enough to perhaps pose a threat – IF the home had still been standing at that point – the winds by then would have sent the roof at least 90 degrees in another direction (a virtual impossibility, we maintained).
But you didn’t know any of that, because you were not at the trial, as I was.
Re Burden of Proof – Under LA law, the burden is ALWAYS on the insurance company to prove the damaged or destroyed home is NOT covered and has the burden of proving why. But I hope you never have to have that debate as a devastated homeowner yourselves.
John W. Redmann, Attorney for the Kodrins
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.
gg: Re: your statement….
“It seems to me that the plaintifs have to prove by a proponderance of evidence that the water first brought down the house before the wind blew hard enough to bring it down.”
Don’t you just have it reversed? It’s incumbent upon the plaintif policyholder to prove that the wind blew it down before the “surge” of water hit it.
As much as people love to hate insurance companies, It’s time to take a good look at was agreed to in the contract. The homeowner policy very clearly excludes rising water. That is what the intent of the policy authors and that is what it was priced for acuarily. In the absence of clear physical evidence or eye witness testimony, that wind caused this damage, this case should be ruled in favor of State Farm. If all of the debries was blown or even washed away, how can a fair minded judge or jury rule any other way? It seems to me that the plaintifs have to prove by a proponderance of evidence that the water first brought down the house before the wind blew hard enough to bring it down. I don’t think they can do it. As usual though the verdict will likely be based on the presumed guilt of the insurance company. I hope not!
Plaqumines Parish? I can assure you, the property was washed away. The land in Plaqumines is swiss cheese.
Unfortunately, the leevee broke at Port Sulphur
GG,
I think we need to go back to grammar school. wow! Are you a FSU grad?
Historically, courts have ruled in favor of the insured whenever it is reasonable to assume that the peril is covered in their policy. Carriers know this and should be prepared to prove to the court that the insured’s claim is unreasonble and doubtful if they expect to get a favorable ruling. In this case, the insured has a good argument that wind that was the primary cause of loss. New Orleans is a great example for the court to use. New Orleans caught the backside of the hurricane so, most of the damage was caused by flood waters when the levies broke. The houses are still there but, damaged by the flood waters. This is not the situation with the case under discussion. There is very little left of this insured’s home. True, the flood waters may have weakened the structure but, most of house is gone – blown away. The carrier has a very weak case in this situation.
Like the mold claims of a few years back, I think that we will see the development of new policy forms to cover both wind and water. Another possibility would be to extend coverage under either the wind or flood policies to include storm surges – wind driven water.
Bottom line – look at the damage assessment. The description of the damage appears to be caused by wind. The carrier will have the burden of proof that the house floated away!
To add to the discussion, and respond to the one or two persons who posted what I perceived as unkind remarks earlier, what are you? Cold-hearted cynics? Or just terribly misinformed?
You certainly weren’t at the trial where the uncontradicted expert evidence was that hurricane force winds pounded the Kodrin home for HOURS before any flood waters touched it.
Even the defense expert had NO explanation for how the Kodrin home roof ended up 1000 feet across the road from the slab, having ended up in the same direction of earlier top-sustained winds, which arrived long BEFORE any significant flood waters arrived. And when significant flood waters did arrive, they may have only reached between TWO AND FIVE FEET up the walls of the Kodrin home, State Farm’s climatologist had to concede on cross-exam. And, once the flood waters did get deep enough to perhaps pose a threat – IF the home had still been standing at that point – the winds by then would have sent the roof at least 90 degrees in another direction (a virtual impossibility, we maintained).
But you didn’t know any of that, because you were not at the trial, as I was.
Re Burden of Proof – Under LA law, the burden is ALWAYS on the insurance company to prove the damaged or destroyed home is NOT covered and has the burden of proving why. But I hope you never have to have that debate as a devastated homeowner yourselves.
John W. Redmann, Attorney for the Kodrins