I have been in claims administration for over 35 years and this farse is beyond belief.
I understand the delema the insureds are in at the moment, however it is not in the contract to pay full coverage for a multicausation type of loss if the covered loss can be determined by a competent adjuster and the excluded portion of the loss can also be determined and a value placed on it either by way of cost of repair or percentage of total damage sustained.
An example would be were a house was in a zone that sustained a 16 foot surge (plus the current tide level). The house is gone and the debris indicate it was washed away, Just because the flood insurance does not make the insured whole does not mean the wind carrier should make up the difference or as noted by the demands, step in an pay policy limits simply because the house was destroyed. I feel I have always been an advocate for the insured but the policy has always been the guide as to what was possible. If the insurer wanted to pay less than the policy allowed I would defend the position of the policy, if the insured demanded more than they were due I would have to explain the coverages that were in force. Just because a person has sustained a total loss does not mean it is a covered loss (whole or in part), it is too late to change the playing field after the loss has been sustained. If this occurs too often, the insurers will revolt and there will be no insurance product to buy.
I believe the attorneys are whistling in a teapot this time and are demanding things that are not possible under the insurance contract.
We all know that a truly “all risk” policy would not be affordable to the general public. It is time this information was in the public domain and debated as it will never occur unless the public understands the costs and accepts the burden.
The interpretation of the VPL as decided in the Mierzwa case may not be considered ‘good’ law by many but it is the present law (whether good or bad) and was Florida law on the dates the four storms in 2004 hit.
The insurance lobby is striving to have a ‘retroactive’ change in the law that yes, will save them millions. I believe the legislature has the authority to amend the VPL, but not retroactively.
Is Citizen’s (formerly FWUA) going to attempt to get their money back from Mr. Mierzwa?
Other cariers, wanting to do the right thing, have paid out according to the Mierzwa decision. Policyholders have used these funds to rebuild and restore their homes. Are the carriers now going to sue and demand the return of these funds?
I could not agree more, I have to question why current policy provisions were never questioned by attorneys before the storms, I would venture to say it is because NO-ONE reads the policy until after the loss. The current policy forms have been around for years and nothing has changed, It is common knowledge that homeowners policies do not cover flood or rising water, this includes storm surge, why did the lawyers just jump on this wagon. Oh, could it be because there was a buck to be made because people are not responsible for themselves, so we must look to others to take care of them.
I understand that the insureds are upset since their loss is not being made “whole”. But Homeowners Policies and Flood Policies are two seperate entities. There are numerous possibilities where the amount of Flood and Wind Damage will NOT combine and amount to Replacement or Market Value. Policies are Contracts for specific occurances and lawyers should not be wasting the insured’s funds, sparse as they are under these circumstances.
While they are at it I wonder if Legal fees and more particulalry the way they are charged could be tagged on to the bill in question. I mean really. 200 hours in a week?
I agree with you.
While Mr. Van Eaton’s situation is difficult, Mr. Van Eaton did not elect to buy a flood policy and now wants his wind policy to pay him for flood, flood is an excluded peril under his wind policy as it is under most wind policies.
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.
I have been in claims administration for over 35 years and this farse is beyond belief.
I understand the delema the insureds are in at the moment, however it is not in the contract to pay full coverage for a multicausation type of loss if the covered loss can be determined by a competent adjuster and the excluded portion of the loss can also be determined and a value placed on it either by way of cost of repair or percentage of total damage sustained.
An example would be were a house was in a zone that sustained a 16 foot surge (plus the current tide level). The house is gone and the debris indicate it was washed away, Just because the flood insurance does not make the insured whole does not mean the wind carrier should make up the difference or as noted by the demands, step in an pay policy limits simply because the house was destroyed. I feel I have always been an advocate for the insured but the policy has always been the guide as to what was possible. If the insurer wanted to pay less than the policy allowed I would defend the position of the policy, if the insured demanded more than they were due I would have to explain the coverages that were in force. Just because a person has sustained a total loss does not mean it is a covered loss (whole or in part), it is too late to change the playing field after the loss has been sustained. If this occurs too often, the insurers will revolt and there will be no insurance product to buy.
I believe the attorneys are whistling in a teapot this time and are demanding things that are not possible under the insurance contract.
We all know that a truly “all risk” policy would not be affordable to the general public. It is time this information was in the public domain and debated as it will never occur unless the public understands the costs and accepts the burden.
Allstate has actually made a large payment to Mr. Van Eaton on his home insurance.
The interpretation of the VPL as decided in the Mierzwa case may not be considered ‘good’ law by many but it is the present law (whether good or bad) and was Florida law on the dates the four storms in 2004 hit.
The insurance lobby is striving to have a ‘retroactive’ change in the law that yes, will save them millions. I believe the legislature has the authority to amend the VPL, but not retroactively.
Is Citizen’s (formerly FWUA) going to attempt to get their money back from Mr. Mierzwa?
Other cariers, wanting to do the right thing, have paid out according to the Mierzwa decision. Policyholders have used these funds to rebuild and restore their homes. Are the carriers now going to sue and demand the return of these funds?
I could not agree more, I have to question why current policy provisions were never questioned by attorneys before the storms, I would venture to say it is because NO-ONE reads the policy until after the loss. The current policy forms have been around for years and nothing has changed, It is common knowledge that homeowners policies do not cover flood or rising water, this includes storm surge, why did the lawyers just jump on this wagon. Oh, could it be because there was a buck to be made because people are not responsible for themselves, so we must look to others to take care of them.
I understand that the insureds are upset since their loss is not being made “whole”. But Homeowners Policies and Flood Policies are two seperate entities. There are numerous possibilities where the amount of Flood and Wind Damage will NOT combine and amount to Replacement or Market Value. Policies are Contracts for specific occurances and lawyers should not be wasting the insured’s funds, sparse as they are under these circumstances.
While they are at it I wonder if Legal fees and more particulalry the way they are charged could be tagged on to the bill in question. I mean really. 200 hours in a week?
I agree with you.
Can’t you purchase hurricane insurance. If you live it Florida you should know a hurricane might possibly occur.
While Mr. Van Eaton’s situation is difficult, Mr. Van Eaton did not elect to buy a flood policy and now wants his wind policy to pay him for flood, flood is an excluded peril under his wind policy as it is under most wind policies.