I realize the legal system isn’t perfect but I have to believe we’re missing something from the news being reported on this matter. What information and facts are the courts getting that convinces them the damage should be covered even though flood insurance wasn’t in place? Two different courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Are they being misinformed, misled, not reading all the facts of the law? I really just don’t get this.
To suggest that the VPL was not paid for by the insured, as stated in the article, is disingenuous. One would have to be very naive to believe that the 116 year old law was not factored into the premiums by the insurance companies actuaries. The law is quite clear and there is no misinterpretation by the courts.
I think the 50% rule is the problem. The flood insurance and the wind insurance paid me $130,000. If I was allowed to repair, that would be real close to the funding I need to repair my home. However, the city I live in won’t give me a permit to repair. They say my repairs exceed 50% of the value, so I have to elevate my home which effectively forces me to demolish the house. The cost of rebuilding the same house will be $350 to $400 thousand. Since it’s the National Flood program that is forcing the total destruction of my home, the flood insurance should be paying the policy max. To fix this, we need to lobby our U.S. Congress representatives.
I can agree the VPL is probably being factored into premiums (I don’t know it for a fact) but I still don’t see where they get that flooding must be covered in these claims by the homeowner policy. I also agree the law is quite clear. It clearly states that the law applies to COVERED perils. If flood insurance WAS NOT purchased and it is EXCLUDED from homeowner policies then it IS NOT a covered peril. I still fail to see how the courts can believe flooding should be covered when it was not a covered peril and coverage was not purchased.
What you are missing is the judges are prior attorneys and they are ruling for their friends. Get your payment today and see your premiums for the next 4 years go up up up! I hope all those voting next year for Gov, remembers that Gallagher is the reason your rates are going up.
The largely uninformed comments here are laughable. Get an education, people.
The Value Policy Law is a state law that has been on the books for many, many decades. It says if an insured is required to rebuild, rather than repair, after a significant insured casualty loss he is entitled to the limits of the policy he has paid for. That law has been regularly applied over the years to property losses from fire, collision, wind, and other casualties.
As with any state law, from sales taxes to corporate board member immunity laws, the Florida value policy law reflects public policy as determined by the legislature – even though the legislature is far more likely to be bought off by insurance industry lobbyists than a homeowner or small business association.
In this case, that policy involves at least three aspects:
(10 to allow the property owner to be made as “whole” as he has bargained for and paid premiums for – however many policies he may have bought to do that – when the combined effect of the loss and the law requires that the structure be torn down;
(2) to reduce the risk to the economy of a disappearing population unable to afford compliance with re-building laws (or able only to ‘down-build’ replacement buildings because local laws impose added costs beyond simple replacement of an identical structure). Examples: a local law forces the property owner in a flood plain to demolish and go up on stilts or forces a business owner with dangerous asbestos insulation to replace with less dangerous inflammable substances; and
(3) to encourage insureds who have suffered significant damage from an insured hazard to re-build their improvement with a structure more up to date with construction requirements and therefore less prone to future casualties, thus reducing the risk of casualty losses in the future (as, in fact, the four hurricanes show that it did).
One must presume Citizens knew about the Value Policy Law and charged a premium that took that law into account. If it didn’t, then the error belongs to Citizens and not the insureds. In fact, Citizens premiums presumably DID take the Value Policy Law into account – certainly, other wind carriers have done so.
Having collected premiums based on a matrix that includes long-established laws as well as probabilities of hurricane losses, it actually would be a “windfall” to Citizens — NOT the insured — if Citizens were allowed to pay LESS than the policy limits a property owner has paid for!
4. The Mierzwa court made it plain that there is no reason to worry about “double recovery.” If a wind storm carrier believes some portion of the policy limits it is required to pay is attributable to another cause, such as flood, the court correctly noted in its opinion that the wind carrier can demand “contribution” from the other carrier. This is done all the time in every other instance involving multiple hazards and multiple carriers.
5. The bottom line is this: Let the insurance companies fight it out among themselves if they think they are entitled to “contribution” from each other. The property owner — and the community that needs him and others to rebuild safely so it can recover quickly — shouldn’t be forced to bear the burden of that delay or added cost.
The impression I got from this and other articles was that clients we able to collect full policy value from both carriers, thus an unjust enrichment. Getting contribution from the second carrier won’t help if the client can collect that policy’s limit also.
Several of the posters here reference the term laughable. Theres nothing really laughable about this situation at all.
The sad reality is that most non Florida residents really don’t care what happens in Florida. However the other reality is that since maverick judges that know nothing about contract interpretation set precedent that these are flood policy claims then the rest of the country gets to pay for the idiots that build houses on sand 50 yards from the water’s edge.
There is nothing fortuitous about a storm loss in this sitation. It’s going to happen every so often and the US taxpayers get stuck with rebulding stretchs of beach totally unsuitable for residential construction.
For the person complaining about the permit. perhaps the local government is giving you a not so subtle hint that you property is not suited for a residential dwelling.
i could care less if you want to build on the water’s edge. Just don’t make me pay when your ill suited and impoperly built home is destroyed. Pay it out of you own pocket or get a private insuerer to cover it.
I love Hillbilly lawyers. They can argue that crap doesn’t stink.
As I recall, the Citizen’s Insurance company and its’ contracts are all an creation of the FL legislature. They used real insurance policies as a model and those policies have clauses, etc. that have been time tested.
It is a contract of adhesian and the buyer is bound by the contract. This contract says it excludes flood; it requires an uninterupted chain of events to create a single claim; it states that law and ordinance has a separate limit and is not part of the policy limits, etc.
Perhaps a Hillbilly thinks an insurance contract covers everything. The rest of the world knows that you buy flood policies from the federal folks. There are laws about it.
The definition of a total loss does not include law and ordinance issues… unless you are a Hillbilly judge. This will be heard by real lawyers and real judges and the fantacy will go away… I hope.
Even in your own statement you point out what is so obvious to the rest of us.
“The Value Policy Law is a state law that has been on the books for many, many decades. It says if an insured is required to rebuild, rather than repair, after a significant insured casualty loss he is entitled to the limits of the policy he has paid for. That law has been regularly applied over the years to property losses from fire, collision, wind, and other casualties.”
The key here is INSURED CASUALTY. Flood IS NOT an insured casualty.
Argue all you want that the Valued Policy Law should have been factored in the rates, I’m sure that it was. BUT NOT FOR THE PERIL OF FLOOD!!! And therein lies the problem.
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 realize the legal system isn’t perfect but I have to believe we’re missing something from the news being reported on this matter. What information and facts are the courts getting that convinces them the damage should be covered even though flood insurance wasn’t in place? Two different courts have ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Are they being misinformed, misled, not reading all the facts of the law? I really just don’t get this.
To suggest that the VPL was not paid for by the insured, as stated in the article, is disingenuous. One would have to be very naive to believe that the 116 year old law was not factored into the premiums by the insurance companies actuaries. The law is quite clear and there is no misinterpretation by the courts.
I think the 50% rule is the problem. The flood insurance and the wind insurance paid me $130,000. If I was allowed to repair, that would be real close to the funding I need to repair my home. However, the city I live in won’t give me a permit to repair. They say my repairs exceed 50% of the value, so I have to elevate my home which effectively forces me to demolish the house. The cost of rebuilding the same house will be $350 to $400 thousand. Since it’s the National Flood program that is forcing the total destruction of my home, the flood insurance should be paying the policy max. To fix this, we need to lobby our U.S. Congress representatives.
I can agree the VPL is probably being factored into premiums (I don’t know it for a fact) but I still don’t see where they get that flooding must be covered in these claims by the homeowner policy. I also agree the law is quite clear. It clearly states that the law applies to COVERED perils. If flood insurance WAS NOT purchased and it is EXCLUDED from homeowner policies then it IS NOT a covered peril. I still fail to see how the courts can believe flooding should be covered when it was not a covered peril and coverage was not purchased.
What you are missing is the judges are prior attorneys and they are ruling for their friends. Get your payment today and see your premiums for the next 4 years go up up up! I hope all those voting next year for Gov, remembers that Gallagher is the reason your rates are going up.
The largely uninformed comments here are laughable. Get an education, people.
The Value Policy Law is a state law that has been on the books for many, many decades. It says if an insured is required to rebuild, rather than repair, after a significant insured casualty loss he is entitled to the limits of the policy he has paid for. That law has been regularly applied over the years to property losses from fire, collision, wind, and other casualties.
As with any state law, from sales taxes to corporate board member immunity laws, the Florida value policy law reflects public policy as determined by the legislature – even though the legislature is far more likely to be bought off by insurance industry lobbyists than a homeowner or small business association.
In this case, that policy involves at least three aspects:
(10 to allow the property owner to be made as “whole” as he has bargained for and paid premiums for – however many policies he may have bought to do that – when the combined effect of the loss and the law requires that the structure be torn down;
(2) to reduce the risk to the economy of a disappearing population unable to afford compliance with re-building laws (or able only to ‘down-build’ replacement buildings because local laws impose added costs beyond simple replacement of an identical structure). Examples: a local law forces the property owner in a flood plain to demolish and go up on stilts or forces a business owner with dangerous asbestos insulation to replace with less dangerous inflammable substances; and
(3) to encourage insureds who have suffered significant damage from an insured hazard to re-build their improvement with a structure more up to date with construction requirements and therefore less prone to future casualties, thus reducing the risk of casualty losses in the future (as, in fact, the four hurricanes show that it did).
One must presume Citizens knew about the Value Policy Law and charged a premium that took that law into account. If it didn’t, then the error belongs to Citizens and not the insureds. In fact, Citizens premiums presumably DID take the Value Policy Law into account – certainly, other wind carriers have done so.
Having collected premiums based on a matrix that includes long-established laws as well as probabilities of hurricane losses, it actually would be a “windfall” to Citizens — NOT the insured — if Citizens were allowed to pay LESS than the policy limits a property owner has paid for!
4. The Mierzwa court made it plain that there is no reason to worry about “double recovery.” If a wind storm carrier believes some portion of the policy limits it is required to pay is attributable to another cause, such as flood, the court correctly noted in its opinion that the wind carrier can demand “contribution” from the other carrier. This is done all the time in every other instance involving multiple hazards and multiple carriers.
5. The bottom line is this: Let the insurance companies fight it out among themselves if they think they are entitled to “contribution” from each other. The property owner — and the community that needs him and others to rebuild safely so it can recover quickly — shouldn’t be forced to bear the burden of that delay or added cost.
The impression I got from this and other articles was that clients we able to collect full policy value from both carriers, thus an unjust enrichment. Getting contribution from the second carrier won’t help if the client can collect that policy’s limit also.
Several of the posters here reference the term laughable. Theres nothing really laughable about this situation at all.
The sad reality is that most non Florida residents really don’t care what happens in Florida. However the other reality is that since maverick judges that know nothing about contract interpretation set precedent that these are flood policy claims then the rest of the country gets to pay for the idiots that build houses on sand 50 yards from the water’s edge.
There is nothing fortuitous about a storm loss in this sitation. It’s going to happen every so often and the US taxpayers get stuck with rebulding stretchs of beach totally unsuitable for residential construction.
For the person complaining about the permit. perhaps the local government is giving you a not so subtle hint that you property is not suited for a residential dwelling.
i could care less if you want to build on the water’s edge. Just don’t make me pay when your ill suited and impoperly built home is destroyed. Pay it out of you own pocket or get a private insuerer to cover it.
I love Hillbilly lawyers. They can argue that crap doesn’t stink.
As I recall, the Citizen’s Insurance company and its’ contracts are all an creation of the FL legislature. They used real insurance policies as a model and those policies have clauses, etc. that have been time tested.
It is a contract of adhesian and the buyer is bound by the contract. This contract says it excludes flood; it requires an uninterupted chain of events to create a single claim; it states that law and ordinance has a separate limit and is not part of the policy limits, etc.
Perhaps a Hillbilly thinks an insurance contract covers everything. The rest of the world knows that you buy flood policies from the federal folks. There are laws about it.
The definition of a total loss does not include law and ordinance issues… unless you are a Hillbilly judge. This will be heard by real lawyers and real judges and the fantacy will go away… I hope.
Even in your own statement you point out what is so obvious to the rest of us.
“The Value Policy Law is a state law that has been on the books for many, many decades. It says if an insured is required to rebuild, rather than repair, after a significant insured casualty loss he is entitled to the limits of the policy he has paid for. That law has been regularly applied over the years to property losses from fire, collision, wind, and other casualties.”
The key here is INSURED CASUALTY. Flood IS NOT an insured casualty.
Argue all you want that the Valued Policy Law should have been factored in the rates, I’m sure that it was. BUT NOT FOR THE PERIL OF FLOOD!!! And therein lies the problem.