Louisiana Court: Policy Exclusions Can’t Be Used to Deny Drywall Claims

March 30, 2010

  • March 30, 2010 at 7:51 am
    Good Hands says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why not just say the policy is intended to make the public feel good. Why have all these pesky definitions and conditions in the policy that just make people anxious? We’re gonna ignore them anyway!

  • March 30, 2010 at 1:53 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Another flawed decision by the Louisiana courts. (not surprising) How can the drywall be “not defective” for the purpose it was intended when it poses a risk to inhabitants of a dwelling? Judge Medley is a fool. The insurance industry should aggressively challenge this decision. Suit should be filed against the Chinese for producing this crap. It is not suitable to use in dwelling construction hence it’s “merchantability” is unacceptable. American insures shouldn’t have to clean up another Chinese mess.

  • March 30, 2010 at 2:19 am
    Gray Cat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I agree completely. The judge is just looking for a way to have insurance cover the dry wall claims regardless of the contrat (policy) the insure bought. I too hope the carrier fights this and/or claims are aggressively pursued against the Chinese manufacturers.

  • March 30, 2010 at 2:35 am
    Anejo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The populist mentality of Huey Long is alive and well in Louisiana.

  • March 30, 2010 at 2:43 am
    TN says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The question now becomes, how many states are going to refer to this decision in an effort to avoid having to make the decision themselves. They may have just opened Pandora’s box people.

  • March 30, 2010 at 3:10 am
    Bill says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If the oompany uses the standard “all-risk” exclusions then it should be excluded as a “latent defect.” How can the court say that the drywall is not defective when the suit was brought on the basis of defective material. In Cajun speak I guess that defective doesn’t include a product having a defect. Quoting the court, “…the Chinese drywall defect is not one that renders the drywall unable to perform the purpose of drywall.” If that is the case then the company and remove the suspect drywall land install it in another house because it can perform the purpose of drywall. RIGHT. What building department will let you use a known defective product in new or remodeled construction?

  • March 30, 2010 at 3:10 am
    Tom says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Another great way to create an attractive business environment and get solvent insurers to re-enter the market and provide insurance competition. Get ready, Louisian Citizens Insurance Co. for the next wave of business.

  • March 30, 2010 at 3:17 am
    joe says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have been in the insurance (and claims) business for a very long time and can’t believe this will stand. There is clearly no coverage under any standard homeowners policy for this. I am confident this judges opinion will be overturned. If not, gawd help us all – – – -.

  • March 30, 2010 at 3:29 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Louisiana has always been a drain on the economy and I’m not surprised that this idiot judge made this ruling. Louisiana is a welfare state that sucks more taxpayer dollars from the federal government than it’s worth. We can only hope “the big one” will finally eradicate the city to the point it doesn’t warrant re-building. Why isn’t anyone incensed over the damn Chinese? That country makes crap and sells it to stupid Americans. Now American courts want Americans to pay the consequences. Screw the Chinese. A class action suite should be filed by the Attorney General for ALL damage claims related to their faulty drywall. Suit should also be filed against the idiots in this country who failed to test this crap before using it.

  • March 30, 2010 at 5:00 am
    Disgusted says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The Chinese are holding so much of our bonds there is no way our government or an international court will allow a class action suit and the Chinsese have already told everyon to “take their best shot”.
    That is why civil courts are looking for other sources and making such liberal decisions on this issue.
    This is what happens when a communist country hold the cards.



Add a Comment

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

*