It is sad, but these are the times in which we can sue one another when a breach of contract has NOT happened. This is the case in MS. Whether you like or not, an insurance policy is a contract signed and agreed to by the homeowner. Like all contracts, it contains,” in writing,” what is and is not included within itself, abd every homeowner should be aware of these provisions. Since 1968, again thats 1968, the government has offered flood insurance because insurance providers DO NOT and HAVE NEVER offered it. For the attorney general of MS to sue for coverage of damages that are not included in the policy is irresponsible. While his intent may be just, his lawsuit is without merit. MS governor Haley Barbour has even stated that this is not the answer to this problem and that talks with Federal Government, Department of Insurnace, and other federal agencies are needed to figure out an answer on how to help the people of the gulf coast. The legal precedent alone would be catastrophic to the legal system if someone is allowed to sue for addition of contract provisions after the contract has been agreed upon and validated by both parties. I am from the MS gulf coast, and my family had damage to our property like most everyone else down here did. If Jim Hood wants to help, there are plenty of ways he can come down here and chip in. But they all involve a little sweat.
In every hurricane wind because of falling barometric pressures, develops and pushes water into waves surging above sea level. Extreme winds of a major hurricane push the water into waves which collectively form a large upside-down dome above the sea level. Wherever the lowest barometric pressure in a hurricane is located, the wind is sure to follow. With the extreme winds of a cat 3 hurricane blowing along the sea surface, this ‘dome’ of water is sure to be close behind the wind.
What came first the wind or the flood? Of course it was the wind. Imagine a video of a structure facing Katrina on its northeast side, somewhere in Pass Christian, Bay St.Louis or Waveland, with conditions easily of cat 4 winds, while a lagging tidal surge still roaring along as a diminishing cat 5.
The roof’s eaves facing into the wind of this structure, would be bowing from the stress, as metal nails create creaking and snapping sounds as they moved inside against wood. The roof decking would start bowing and lifting, tearing away as shingles whiz by twisting through the air like high-speed pieces of tar-covered cardboard. With the front-face decking shearing off the roof, the rear-face decking strains to hold onto the roof framing before suddenly ripping away, but not before taking with it parts of the roof trusses.
Meanwhile, with the dome of the wind driven surge roaring closer and higher to this house, the once covered windows shatter allowing heavy rain to shower sideways into the home’s interior finished living space. Within minutes a raging collection of waves deepens and mangles the foundation structure, collapsing it into a washing machine like agitation of saltwater.
In my opinion, in the hardest hit areas where the flood totaled homes and buildings beyond any sign or recognition, wind as a peril bears some responsibility. Elsewhere outside this area, the physical evidence is more discernible.
While the vast percentage of destruction was from surging waters from the gulf which flooded those areas, wind’s responsibility as a peril is enough to be a considerable financial aid to a homeowner who has especially under-insured him or herself under their flood policy. The house I described above firmly could have suffered 15% destruction from wind and only wind, first before the flood destroyed the remaining 85% afterwards.
Pro-rated by peril to the value of the physical structure, and to the expense incurred to live elsewhere, is the required approach to these homeowners in the hardest hit areas. This is something certainly a good AG will make sure is not overlooked by insurance carriers who are operating business in the state of MS.
Anything beyond this towards a position which favors homeowner policies covering damage cause by a ‘hurricane,’ will have to be judged hopefully by a jury of level-headed citizens.
Very interesting analysis of what part wind plays in a storm surge, but totally irrelevant to 90% of the policies at issue.
The flood exclusion is for flood regardless of underlying cause or sequence of events. There is no provision in the contract for pro-rating damage from flood into purely flood vs. part of the flood due to wind.
The policy does cover wind damage, and to my knowledge no carrier is disputing that fact.
The AG isn’t trying to apportion wind vs. flood; he’s trying to force the carriers to pay for all flood because he alleges that the flood exclusion is against public policy (even though aproved by the DOI), and because he alleges that the policies that clearly exclude flood are somehow deceptive. Both of these argumnets are without merit.
He is also alleging unfair claims practices against the homeowners carriers, even though his document “evidence” appears to point the finger at the NFIP.
I am not aware of any carrier unwilling to consider apportioning pure wind vs. wind-driven flood damage, although, as you concede, this is very difficult to do when one peril may have caused some damage, but the other peril totaled the property before an inspection of the first could be done.
As far as level headed jurors deciding the case, the suit filed by the AG will get little, if any, juror review. The injunctive relief sought is at the judge’s discretion. The public policy issues are also matters of law, to be decided by the judge. In the suit filed, the jury will be allowed to decide if the policies were deceptive.
The suit in no way addresses the real issue and difficulty in adjusting these losses, nor is it intended to. The intent of the suit is to negate the provisions of a legally binding contract so that the need to adjust the claims is obviated. That’s the slippery slope.
Once the AG invalidates one legally binding contract, all legally binding contracts are at risk. Result: no one will want to contract business in MS.
Lets keep our eye on the ball here. The issue raised by the AG goes far beyond this storm. It threatens the economic well-being of the state as a whole, far into the future.
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.
It is sad, but these are the times in which we can sue one another when a breach of contract has NOT happened. This is the case in MS. Whether you like or not, an insurance policy is a contract signed and agreed to by the homeowner. Like all contracts, it contains,” in writing,” what is and is not included within itself, abd every homeowner should be aware of these provisions. Since 1968, again thats 1968, the government has offered flood insurance because insurance providers DO NOT and HAVE NEVER offered it. For the attorney general of MS to sue for coverage of damages that are not included in the policy is irresponsible. While his intent may be just, his lawsuit is without merit. MS governor Haley Barbour has even stated that this is not the answer to this problem and that talks with Federal Government, Department of Insurnace, and other federal agencies are needed to figure out an answer on how to help the people of the gulf coast. The legal precedent alone would be catastrophic to the legal system if someone is allowed to sue for addition of contract provisions after the contract has been agreed upon and validated by both parties. I am from the MS gulf coast, and my family had damage to our property like most everyone else down here did. If Jim Hood wants to help, there are plenty of ways he can come down here and chip in. But they all involve a little sweat.
In every hurricane wind because of falling barometric pressures, develops and pushes water into waves surging above sea level. Extreme winds of a major hurricane push the water into waves which collectively form a large upside-down dome above the sea level. Wherever the lowest barometric pressure in a hurricane is located, the wind is sure to follow. With the extreme winds of a cat 3 hurricane blowing along the sea surface, this ‘dome’ of water is sure to be close behind the wind.
What came first the wind or the flood? Of course it was the wind. Imagine a video of a structure facing Katrina on its northeast side, somewhere in Pass Christian, Bay St.Louis or Waveland, with conditions easily of cat 4 winds, while a lagging tidal surge still roaring along as a diminishing cat 5.
The roof’s eaves facing into the wind of this structure, would be bowing from the stress, as metal nails create creaking and snapping sounds as they moved inside against wood. The roof decking would start bowing and lifting, tearing away as shingles whiz by twisting through the air like high-speed pieces of tar-covered cardboard. With the front-face decking shearing off the roof, the rear-face decking strains to hold onto the roof framing before suddenly ripping away, but not before taking with it parts of the roof trusses.
Meanwhile, with the dome of the wind driven surge roaring closer and higher to this house, the once covered windows shatter allowing heavy rain to shower sideways into the home’s interior finished living space. Within minutes a raging collection of waves deepens and mangles the foundation structure, collapsing it into a washing machine like agitation of saltwater.
In my opinion, in the hardest hit areas where the flood totaled homes and buildings beyond any sign or recognition, wind as a peril bears some responsibility. Elsewhere outside this area, the physical evidence is more discernible.
While the vast percentage of destruction was from surging waters from the gulf which flooded those areas, wind’s responsibility as a peril is enough to be a considerable financial aid to a homeowner who has especially under-insured him or herself under their flood policy. The house I described above firmly could have suffered 15% destruction from wind and only wind, first before the flood destroyed the remaining 85% afterwards.
Pro-rated by peril to the value of the physical structure, and to the expense incurred to live elsewhere, is the required approach to these homeowners in the hardest hit areas. This is something certainly a good AG will make sure is not overlooked by insurance carriers who are operating business in the state of MS.
Anything beyond this towards a position which favors homeowner policies covering damage cause by a ‘hurricane,’ will have to be judged hopefully by a jury of level-headed citizens.
Very interesting analysis of what part wind plays in a storm surge, but totally irrelevant to 90% of the policies at issue.
The flood exclusion is for flood regardless of underlying cause or sequence of events. There is no provision in the contract for pro-rating damage from flood into purely flood vs. part of the flood due to wind.
The policy does cover wind damage, and to my knowledge no carrier is disputing that fact.
The AG isn’t trying to apportion wind vs. flood; he’s trying to force the carriers to pay for all flood because he alleges that the flood exclusion is against public policy (even though aproved by the DOI), and because he alleges that the policies that clearly exclude flood are somehow deceptive. Both of these argumnets are without merit.
He is also alleging unfair claims practices against the homeowners carriers, even though his document “evidence” appears to point the finger at the NFIP.
I am not aware of any carrier unwilling to consider apportioning pure wind vs. wind-driven flood damage, although, as you concede, this is very difficult to do when one peril may have caused some damage, but the other peril totaled the property before an inspection of the first could be done.
As far as level headed jurors deciding the case, the suit filed by the AG will get little, if any, juror review. The injunctive relief sought is at the judge’s discretion. The public policy issues are also matters of law, to be decided by the judge. In the suit filed, the jury will be allowed to decide if the policies were deceptive.
The suit in no way addresses the real issue and difficulty in adjusting these losses, nor is it intended to. The intent of the suit is to negate the provisions of a legally binding contract so that the need to adjust the claims is obviated. That’s the slippery slope.
Once the AG invalidates one legally binding contract, all legally binding contracts are at risk. Result: no one will want to contract business in MS.
Lets keep our eye on the ball here. The issue raised by the AG goes far beyond this storm. It threatens the economic well-being of the state as a whole, far into the future.