I am confused, this court seemed to get it right based on the contract in place, and said there is NO coverage for an excluded peril or exposure. Why is it that another court said that companies must pay out policy limits for homes that were totaled by an excluded peril, as in the Citizens/ Merizwa case in the pan handle. Maybe Citizens should look up the judge that handed down this proper ruling.
It is forrific that this child died, but the day care owner failed to properly insure her BUSINESS, and I’m probably safe is saying she was not properly licensed to care for children in her home, or HRS would have looked for her insurance certificate during an inspection
Well bs, I guess your detector has malfunctioned. I am not an attorney nor do I work in the insurance industry. I’m just an outsider asking a question about the strict interpretation of the laws and providing a different point of view. I believe I have found the answer to how the laws should be interpretated. Thank you. Rule of law, man…rule of law. Your rant comes right out of the insurance lobby playbook; no original thought. You haven’t convinced me that the insurance companies are being victimized by “weasel” attorneys. Perhaps you should actually read the findings of the 4th DCA; it may help you understand. Here’s another question…how many insurance companies lost money last year? How many didn’t make as much money? They are in the risk business. Nothing is guaranteed; not the million dollar executive bonuses, not the dividend they throw off. Do you find it perverse that an insurance company’s stock price goes up when there is a catastrophe? I’m sure you are aware that the legislature is plugging your loophole and clarifying their intent regarding the VPL. So rest easy and trust that the “weasel” lawyers in the insurance lobby (who actually write the legislation) are smarter than the rest of the “weasel” lawyers out there. Remember, rule of law. And, get that detector fixed.
Fred, The BS detector may have been wrong, but some of us still think it smells. You said you are not an attorney and do not work in the insurance industry. Why are you looking at and posting in an insurance web site, what are your interests with this?
I’m just a consumer. Remember us? Are you the IJ thought police? Why so spun up? All I really wanted to know is why praise a strict interpretation of the law in one case and not another? It’s a simple question and I believe I have found the answer. Thank you all. Oh…and this aroma you speak of, perhaps one day you will get used to it. Have a great weekend!
Fred, I think you are confused about strict interpretation and doing the right thing. The Mierzwa case was not a strict interpretation of the law, it was a case won on a flaw that had never been realized before, that flaw will be fixed soon if the state legislature has any backbone. The VPL as you call it, never had any intentions for double payments to an insured for loss by 2 perils, it was intended to make sure insureds were paid policy limits instead of some depreciated or ill construed value. If a policy excludes coverage for flood it should never pay for flood damage, if they had wind damage that was above their deductible it would have paid. In NO situation should they EVER be paid policy limits by two policies on the same location, this creates a potential for massive fraud and certainly creates a moral and morale hazard. It is illogical for even the lesser trained humans to think they should have double recovery from 2 policies that only cover one peril and exclude all others. If this is the type of coverage people want I suggest they pull out their wallets, because it is sure going to cost more if excluded perils will now be covered. If that were the true intentions, why OH why would we have 2 different policies instead of just one?
Do you think an auto policy should cover damage to a boat that is damaged while being towed by an insured auto? What about a fire that is caused by a car that catched fire while in a garage, should the home owners policy cover damage to the car, or should the car policy cover damage to the home. Neither thats why we have 2 policies. The VPL was flawed, it will be fixed, until another attorney thinks he can make a buck. It is disheartning to think that people hold others responsible for taking care of a loss that could have been covered if they had only done the right thing and bought the correct coverage, it is another total issue when people try to break the system and succeed, that doesn’t help anyone in the long run. I hope you get over what ever bugs you, I just have problems with irresponsible people and the attorneys that pray on them, they really are making society worse when this happens, and that is sad.
Hmmm…let’s do the math. 2 risks (car and boat) = 2 policies…sounds reasonable. 2 risks (car and house) = 4 policies…aroma-esque? 1 risk (house) = 3 policies…that don’t add up. Who’s getting the windfall? Is it the homeowners (who lawfully paid their premiums)throughout the state that fraudulenly made those hurricanes hit their homes; some of whom lost everything? Doubtful! And yes, why oh why does it take 3 policies (hazard, wind, flood) to insure a home? To keep premiums low? Doubtful. And no id, I am not confused about the strict interpretation of law and doing the right thing. The right thing may mean different things to different people. So yes, I will err on the side of the law, because IT’S THE LAW. Without them, we have anarchy…and yes, I know my homeowners policy excludes riots, civil disobedience, war. Did I miss any? Probably. I better go buy another policy. Dang, i gess yu hily traned human did it agin, i giv yoo mo monee fo nuthin. Get over yourself id.
Kudos to First Protective, I don’t know why, but congrats on winning the case and helping to infuse a little trust in us that the legal system sometimes does the right thing. This was a tragic case for 2 reasons, first was the loss of life, and second is the difficulty the insured will have because they failed to properly insure their business. I can only hope this is a wake up call to others. EXCLUSIONS IN A POLICY SHOULD STAND UP IN COURT , and it is encouraging that it did in this case. My thoughts are with the family, I hope anyone that allows someone to care for a child will check on them and ask for proof of licensing, training and insurance. If only all people were responsible, we would have little need for attorneys.
If Fred is not an attorney, he could sure play one on TV, he seems to have a way of making it all sound like he should win.
A contract is a contract and an insurance policy IS a contract, if you do not like the provisions it contains, don’t sign it. Business pursuits are not covered under a homeowners policies, this is why you can buy business insurance, the insurance company must properly evaluate the RISK and charge a premium that is actuaraly sound so that a claim can be paid in the event of a covered loss. It is not logical for the courts to force a company to pay out on a claim that it did not cover and did not collect a proper and adequate premium for. Sometimes we win, and other times we just should have won.
For not being an attorney and not being in the insurance business, Fred sure knows all the right words, most “consumers” would not know adhesion if it bit them in the ***. A mortgage is also a contract and like insurance it is binding on both parties, you have the same right to not have a mortgage or not have insurance. If your mortgage contract says you must have insurance and you sign on the line, expect to have insurance either at your option or the banks, either way you will pay for the insurance. If you do not have a mortgage you have no other legal requirement to purchase insurance for any reason. And most policies vary in some degree from company to company, that is the problem with irresponsible people not reading their policies to see what they are covered for. It has been a state requirement for years that Declaration pages clearly note that the homeowners policy does not cover flood or rising water, It amazes me that people don’t see this and blame someone else for their loss. I would never spend $1,000 or more for something and not be sure what I had just bought, but then a lot of people don’t read the owners manual for their car either. An agent is a valuable thing to have, they can explain coverages and advise on what you should have, however it is the insureds responsiblity to be honest about the exposure, and let the agent know if things change, I do not know of any agent that can read minds to know when a room was added to a house. I really feel sorry for those bargain hunters that buy insurance from web sites or 800#’s and never talk to an agent, They don’t save money, they are just not getting service and advice. A policy should be more than a piece of paper.
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 am confused, this court seemed to get it right based on the contract in place, and said there is NO coverage for an excluded peril or exposure. Why is it that another court said that companies must pay out policy limits for homes that were totaled by an excluded peril, as in the Citizens/ Merizwa case in the pan handle. Maybe Citizens should look up the judge that handed down this proper ruling.
It is forrific that this child died, but the day care owner failed to properly insure her BUSINESS, and I’m probably safe is saying she was not properly licensed to care for children in her home, or HRS would have looked for her insurance certificate during an inspection
sorry, that Citizens ruling was not in the panhandle, but the current pending cases are.
Well bs, I guess your detector has malfunctioned. I am not an attorney nor do I work in the insurance industry. I’m just an outsider asking a question about the strict interpretation of the laws and providing a different point of view. I believe I have found the answer to how the laws should be interpretated. Thank you. Rule of law, man…rule of law. Your rant comes right out of the insurance lobby playbook; no original thought. You haven’t convinced me that the insurance companies are being victimized by “weasel” attorneys. Perhaps you should actually read the findings of the 4th DCA; it may help you understand. Here’s another question…how many insurance companies lost money last year? How many didn’t make as much money? They are in the risk business. Nothing is guaranteed; not the million dollar executive bonuses, not the dividend they throw off. Do you find it perverse that an insurance company’s stock price goes up when there is a catastrophe? I’m sure you are aware that the legislature is plugging your loophole and clarifying their intent regarding the VPL. So rest easy and trust that the “weasel” lawyers in the insurance lobby (who actually write the legislation) are smarter than the rest of the “weasel” lawyers out there. Remember, rule of law. And, get that detector fixed.
Fred, The BS detector may have been wrong, but some of us still think it smells. You said you are not an attorney and do not work in the insurance industry. Why are you looking at and posting in an insurance web site, what are your interests with this?
I’m just a consumer. Remember us? Are you the IJ thought police? Why so spun up? All I really wanted to know is why praise a strict interpretation of the law in one case and not another? It’s a simple question and I believe I have found the answer. Thank you all. Oh…and this aroma you speak of, perhaps one day you will get used to it. Have a great weekend!
Fred, I think you are confused about strict interpretation and doing the right thing. The Mierzwa case was not a strict interpretation of the law, it was a case won on a flaw that had never been realized before, that flaw will be fixed soon if the state legislature has any backbone. The VPL as you call it, never had any intentions for double payments to an insured for loss by 2 perils, it was intended to make sure insureds were paid policy limits instead of some depreciated or ill construed value. If a policy excludes coverage for flood it should never pay for flood damage, if they had wind damage that was above their deductible it would have paid. In NO situation should they EVER be paid policy limits by two policies on the same location, this creates a potential for massive fraud and certainly creates a moral and morale hazard. It is illogical for even the lesser trained humans to think they should have double recovery from 2 policies that only cover one peril and exclude all others. If this is the type of coverage people want I suggest they pull out their wallets, because it is sure going to cost more if excluded perils will now be covered. If that were the true intentions, why OH why would we have 2 different policies instead of just one?
Do you think an auto policy should cover damage to a boat that is damaged while being towed by an insured auto? What about a fire that is caused by a car that catched fire while in a garage, should the home owners policy cover damage to the car, or should the car policy cover damage to the home. Neither thats why we have 2 policies. The VPL was flawed, it will be fixed, until another attorney thinks he can make a buck. It is disheartning to think that people hold others responsible for taking care of a loss that could have been covered if they had only done the right thing and bought the correct coverage, it is another total issue when people try to break the system and succeed, that doesn’t help anyone in the long run. I hope you get over what ever bugs you, I just have problems with irresponsible people and the attorneys that pray on them, they really are making society worse when this happens, and that is sad.
Hmmm…let’s do the math. 2 risks (car and boat) = 2 policies…sounds reasonable. 2 risks (car and house) = 4 policies…aroma-esque? 1 risk (house) = 3 policies…that don’t add up. Who’s getting the windfall? Is it the homeowners (who lawfully paid their premiums)throughout the state that fraudulenly made those hurricanes hit their homes; some of whom lost everything? Doubtful! And yes, why oh why does it take 3 policies (hazard, wind, flood) to insure a home? To keep premiums low? Doubtful. And no id, I am not confused about the strict interpretation of law and doing the right thing. The right thing may mean different things to different people. So yes, I will err on the side of the law, because IT’S THE LAW. Without them, we have anarchy…and yes, I know my homeowners policy excludes riots, civil disobedience, war. Did I miss any? Probably. I better go buy another policy. Dang, i gess yu hily traned human did it agin, i giv yoo mo monee fo nuthin. Get over yourself id.
Kudos to First Protective, I don’t know why, but congrats on winning the case and helping to infuse a little trust in us that the legal system sometimes does the right thing. This was a tragic case for 2 reasons, first was the loss of life, and second is the difficulty the insured will have because they failed to properly insure their business. I can only hope this is a wake up call to others. EXCLUSIONS IN A POLICY SHOULD STAND UP IN COURT , and it is encouraging that it did in this case. My thoughts are with the family, I hope anyone that allows someone to care for a child will check on them and ask for proof of licensing, training and insurance. If only all people were responsible, we would have little need for attorneys.
If Fred is not an attorney, he could sure play one on TV, he seems to have a way of making it all sound like he should win.
A contract is a contract and an insurance policy IS a contract, if you do not like the provisions it contains, don’t sign it. Business pursuits are not covered under a homeowners policies, this is why you can buy business insurance, the insurance company must properly evaluate the RISK and charge a premium that is actuaraly sound so that a claim can be paid in the event of a covered loss. It is not logical for the courts to force a company to pay out on a claim that it did not cover and did not collect a proper and adequate premium for. Sometimes we win, and other times we just should have won.
For not being an attorney and not being in the insurance business, Fred sure knows all the right words, most “consumers” would not know adhesion if it bit them in the ***. A mortgage is also a contract and like insurance it is binding on both parties, you have the same right to not have a mortgage or not have insurance. If your mortgage contract says you must have insurance and you sign on the line, expect to have insurance either at your option or the banks, either way you will pay for the insurance. If you do not have a mortgage you have no other legal requirement to purchase insurance for any reason. And most policies vary in some degree from company to company, that is the problem with irresponsible people not reading their policies to see what they are covered for. It has been a state requirement for years that Declaration pages clearly note that the homeowners policy does not cover flood or rising water, It amazes me that people don’t see this and blame someone else for their loss. I would never spend $1,000 or more for something and not be sure what I had just bought, but then a lot of people don’t read the owners manual for their car either. An agent is a valuable thing to have, they can explain coverages and advise on what you should have, however it is the insureds responsiblity to be honest about the exposure, and let the agent know if things change, I do not know of any agent that can read minds to know when a room was added to a house. I really feel sorry for those bargain hunters that buy insurance from web sites or 800#’s and never talk to an agent, They don’t save money, they are just not getting service and advice. A policy should be more than a piece of paper.