Any company that does business in Louisiana is opening themselves up for more of this garbage. It is only going to get worse. In fact, if I ran a company that did business in Louisiana, I’d pull out, plain and simple.
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.
Yes Geoff I agree. The insurance companies should take the bulk of the blame in this one. After all they’re the one’e with any money. Right? Who else can we blame. No one. Anybody remotely involved in the building industry is broke or going broke. I like what the court said. The drywall isn’t faulty so now I guess there will be no reason to remove it. If the Chinese can live in polluted, filthy conditions without complaint, certainly we can as well. And LA is a good place to start.
Snyder: you’ve obviously lost your business sense and have joined the aging fleet of Americans with an entitlement attitude. Insurance companies aren’t welfare agencies and policies were never intended to cover everthing conceivable much less defective products. The greedy contractors who bought this crap, the consumer testing agenices who are supposed to certify this crap, building inspectors who approved it’s use should pay the piper. Many people should pay, not the property insurers. You want Cadillac coverage but want to pay Hyundai premiums.
p.s. by the way, I’ve been in P&C claims management for over 35 years.
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
To Geoff: I think the point of the previous comments is that the Faulty, Inadequate or Defective Planning Exclusion is in fact not vague at all. Latent defects in construction are not covered in an insurance policy with this exclusion. If this exclusion did not exist, than a homeowners policy would be in essence a home warranty.
I would be shocked if this is not overturned on appeal.
Since this is an insurance industry publication, it’s a pretty safe guess that most of us are in the industry. What third sub-basement at AIG did you work in for 12 years? Who left whom?
“Posted On: March 30, 2010, 5:57 pm CDT
Posted By: snyder
Comment:
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.”
None of your premium dollars go to pay for this…it’s an exclusion. Allegedly working for an insurer doesn’t mean you can read an insurance policy. ISO equivalent forms clearly exclude this.
Posted On: March 31, 2010, 8:45 am CDT
Posted By: Geoff
Comment:
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
===============
There’s nothing vague about the exclusions that apply to these losses. Anyone who can read an insurance policy objectively knows there is no coverage.
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.
Any company that does business in Louisiana is opening themselves up for more of this garbage. It is only going to get worse. In fact, if I ran a company that did business in Louisiana, I’d pull out, plain and simple.
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.
Yes Geoff I agree. The insurance companies should take the bulk of the blame in this one. After all they’re the one’e with any money. Right? Who else can we blame. No one. Anybody remotely involved in the building industry is broke or going broke. I like what the court said. The drywall isn’t faulty so now I guess there will be no reason to remove it. If the Chinese can live in polluted, filthy conditions without complaint, certainly we can as well. And LA is a good place to start.
Snyder: you’ve obviously lost your business sense and have joined the aging fleet of Americans with an entitlement attitude. Insurance companies aren’t welfare agencies and policies were never intended to cover everthing conceivable much less defective products. The greedy contractors who bought this crap, the consumer testing agenices who are supposed to certify this crap, building inspectors who approved it’s use should pay the piper. Many people should pay, not the property insurers. You want Cadillac coverage but want to pay Hyundai premiums.
p.s. by the way, I’ve been in P&C claims management for over 35 years.
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
you do realize Geoff that that most if not all of us are insurance professionals in here right?
To Geoff: I think the point of the previous comments is that the Faulty, Inadequate or Defective Planning Exclusion is in fact not vague at all. Latent defects in construction are not covered in an insurance policy with this exclusion. If this exclusion did not exist, than a homeowners policy would be in essence a home warranty.
I would be shocked if this is not overturned on appeal.
Since this is an insurance industry publication, it’s a pretty safe guess that most of us are in the industry. What third sub-basement at AIG did you work in for 12 years? Who left whom?
“Posted On: March 30, 2010, 5:57 pm CDT
Posted By: snyder
Comment:
I wish it would fly, right out of my property. My guess is most of these poster and possibly posers are employed by the insurance industry. I was also once employed by AIG and for 12 years worked at 99 John St. in NYC. When younger I may have agreed with you guys. However with age and wisdom, I must decline. The insurers are on the hook for this. This protection is what I pay them for.”
None of your premium dollars go to pay for this…it’s an exclusion. Allegedly working for an insurer doesn’t mean you can read an insurance policy. ISO equivalent forms clearly exclude this.
Posted On: March 31, 2010, 8:45 am CDT
Posted By: Geoff
Comment:
You can’t blame a homeowner or the courts for this situation. Insurance companies are experts in the area of exclusions and limitations. The fact they tried to write a vague catch all exclusions is dishonest and just plain lazy. They deserve this decision.
===============
There’s nothing vague about the exclusions that apply to these losses. Anyone who can read an insurance policy objectively knows there is no coverage.