First, let me say that I would be very surprised to find that any carrier authorized their adjusters to take signed “releases” from insureds acknowledging that their claim is flood related. There would be no reason to do that. If that is, in fact, going on, then the carriers need to step in and end the practice.
As far as the AG’s suit, while I haven’t been able to scare up a copy yet, the news articles I’ve read don’t even mention adjusting practices. They all mention invalidating the policy language excluding flood, for a variety of reasons. In that regard, I would offer the following observations:
First, if the MS Insurance Commissioner has any guts, he’ll intervene with a separation of powers argument. Since setting and accepting policy language is a regulatory (administrative) role, it should be outside of the AG’s duties. And, last I heard, it was the legislature, not the courts, which decide what is and is not the public policy. Left to just arguing deceptive trade practices or the vagueness of policy language, the suit is a sure loser.
Second, I don’t believe for a minute that the MS AG really believes in the merits of his suit. In my opinion, he is: A.) looking for votes; B.) looking for campaign contributions from the plaintiff bar; C.) running interference for the private suit being prepared by Scruggs by getting a head start on public opinion, and a lot of free discovery; D.) is planning to pass this off, a la the tobacco suit, to Scruggs and put Scruggs on the State payroll; or, E.) all of the above.
It would serve the MS AG right if the homeowner’s carriers (those willing to continue writing in MS) started making flood coverage “mandatory” statewide; in other words, all new and renewal business will include a premium for flood. Wait until the public see what that looks like. It won’t be the limited coverage, tax-payer subsidized low price you get from the Feds.
If you want the cheaper Fed coverage, or don’t want the coverage at all, you’ll have to sign a “Flood Rejection” form, sort of like UM.
If the suit is successful, that is surely what you will see. Since hardly anyone will want to pay the private insurance rates, there will be a paper trail of rejections. What will the AG do for an encore? You know, when there is another storm, and 3 out of 4 properties are still uninsured. What then?
This Spitzer-wannabe MS AG needs to make sure that he doesn’t get trapped by the law of unintended consequences.
Come on Man, Get REAL….Where have you been all your life ? Don’t you read the papers or follow the news ? The road to the State House is usually paved with Lies and Deceit. Do you think a company like State Farm would screw around with their public reputation ? Sorry, Bub, You be “Very Wrong” on this one ! Don’t worry the future will tell the Real Story.
Chris,
It all goes back to “If the MS Ins. Comm. has any guts….” George Dale v. Jim Hood? Not likely!
I agree with you, but it is all down hill from there.
Kelly Jo
If it was not true then why the suit?
Do the insurers think the people of the south are that dumb?
You all need to quit pickin on our GOOD politicians.
To Hey…just because someone makes an allegation in a complaint does not make it true. Do you have ANY idea how many groundless and meritless lawsuits are filed everyday?
Any if the politicians in your state are ‘gettin picked on’, it is probably because they deserve it!
Hey, Hey…I do work for an insurance company. If your politicos are taking ‘such good care of you’, why don’t they pay for the damage? Further, why doesn’t your legislature make flood insurance mandatory so that the good folks in MS can cry about the high cost of insurance?
This is a case of many people failing to see the forest for the trees, and failing to see the repercussions of litigation that is poorly thought out.
Do you believe your politicos can have all the problems solved with the a few words filed with a court? Do you believe that litigation is a magic wand that fixes everything?
Having now read the entire Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, including Exhibit “A”, which is the alleged smoking gun, all I can say is that Mr. Hood must be a product of the Mississippi educational system, and must be totally unscathed by any knowledge of the insurance industry and its practices.
He would have done well to have consulted with the Insurance Commssioner before filing his suit; but, I guess because the IC doesn’t support his “cause”, that was out of the question.
And no, I don’t work for any homeowner’s insurance carrier
Doesn’t everybody know we love to get things we didn’t pay for? If we didn’t buy wind insurance, we get FEMA to pay for the roof. If we didn’t buy flood insurance, we get a wind carrier to pay for a new house.
Why don’t we outlaw the purchase of flood insurance so everybody will have equality?
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.
What is it about public office that they attract so many unprincipled jersk?
First, let me say that I would be very surprised to find that any carrier authorized their adjusters to take signed “releases” from insureds acknowledging that their claim is flood related. There would be no reason to do that. If that is, in fact, going on, then the carriers need to step in and end the practice.
As far as the AG’s suit, while I haven’t been able to scare up a copy yet, the news articles I’ve read don’t even mention adjusting practices. They all mention invalidating the policy language excluding flood, for a variety of reasons. In that regard, I would offer the following observations:
First, if the MS Insurance Commissioner has any guts, he’ll intervene with a separation of powers argument. Since setting and accepting policy language is a regulatory (administrative) role, it should be outside of the AG’s duties. And, last I heard, it was the legislature, not the courts, which decide what is and is not the public policy. Left to just arguing deceptive trade practices or the vagueness of policy language, the suit is a sure loser.
Second, I don’t believe for a minute that the MS AG really believes in the merits of his suit. In my opinion, he is: A.) looking for votes; B.) looking for campaign contributions from the plaintiff bar; C.) running interference for the private suit being prepared by Scruggs by getting a head start on public opinion, and a lot of free discovery; D.) is planning to pass this off, a la the tobacco suit, to Scruggs and put Scruggs on the State payroll; or, E.) all of the above.
It would serve the MS AG right if the homeowner’s carriers (those willing to continue writing in MS) started making flood coverage “mandatory” statewide; in other words, all new and renewal business will include a premium for flood. Wait until the public see what that looks like. It won’t be the limited coverage, tax-payer subsidized low price you get from the Feds.
If you want the cheaper Fed coverage, or don’t want the coverage at all, you’ll have to sign a “Flood Rejection” form, sort of like UM.
If the suit is successful, that is surely what you will see. Since hardly anyone will want to pay the private insurance rates, there will be a paper trail of rejections. What will the AG do for an encore? You know, when there is another storm, and 3 out of 4 properties are still uninsured. What then?
This Spitzer-wannabe MS AG needs to make sure that he doesn’t get trapped by the law of unintended consequences.
Come on Man, Get REAL….Where have you been all your life ? Don’t you read the papers or follow the news ? The road to the State House is usually paved with Lies and Deceit. Do you think a company like State Farm would screw around with their public reputation ? Sorry, Bub, You be “Very Wrong” on this one ! Don’t worry the future will tell the Real Story.
Chris,
It all goes back to “If the MS Ins. Comm. has any guts….” George Dale v. Jim Hood? Not likely!
I agree with you, but it is all down hill from there.
Kelly Jo
If it was not true then why the suit?
Do the insurers think the people of the south are that dumb?
You all need to quit pickin on our GOOD politicians.
To Hey…just because someone makes an allegation in a complaint does not make it true. Do you have ANY idea how many groundless and meritless lawsuits are filed everyday?
Any if the politicians in your state are ‘gettin picked on’, it is probably because they deserve it!
Sam do you work for an insurance company, maybe?….. I do not know….Farmers?
Our good olde south politico’s are doin just fine THEY will be the ONES who take care of us down here
Hey, Hey…I do work for an insurance company. If your politicos are taking ‘such good care of you’, why don’t they pay for the damage? Further, why doesn’t your legislature make flood insurance mandatory so that the good folks in MS can cry about the high cost of insurance?
This is a case of many people failing to see the forest for the trees, and failing to see the repercussions of litigation that is poorly thought out.
Do you believe your politicos can have all the problems solved with the a few words filed with a court? Do you believe that litigation is a magic wand that fixes everything?
Having now read the entire Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, including Exhibit “A”, which is the alleged smoking gun, all I can say is that Mr. Hood must be a product of the Mississippi educational system, and must be totally unscathed by any knowledge of the insurance industry and its practices.
He would have done well to have consulted with the Insurance Commssioner before filing his suit; but, I guess because the IC doesn’t support his “cause”, that was out of the question.
And no, I don’t work for any homeowner’s insurance carrier
Doesn’t everybody know we love to get things we didn’t pay for? If we didn’t buy wind insurance, we get FEMA to pay for the roof. If we didn’t buy flood insurance, we get a wind carrier to pay for a new house.
Why don’t we outlaw the purchase of flood insurance so everybody will have equality?