You appear to be under the mistaken impression that all coverage litigation is settled in favor of the insured. That is not the case.
Further, all coverage litigation does not result in a finding of bad faith against the insurer, even when the insured prevails.
If the insurer relies upon a reasonable interpretation of the policy, then bad faith does not exist. What makes the interpretation reasonable? Certainly, industry standards and customs, policy wording filing documents, and past interpretations of the same or similar wording, are all factors.
But, first and foremost, the courts are supposed to look to the plain meaning of the terms used, unless the terms used are specifically defined in the policy. Then, they look to the policy definitions. This isn’t just insurance law, its basic contract law.
I’m looking at the HO3 exclusion; the plain meaning and/or policy definitions of the terms used are crystal clear.
To be certain, someone like you can always allege some off the wall interpretation to attempt to introduce an ambiguity where one doesn’t really exist. That doesn’t mean that you are more (or, even) right, or that there is an honest dispute as to the meaning of the terms.
And, I don’t doubt that some politically astute judge will rule in favor of the insured, citing some pretty contrived interpretation as being just as reasonable as the one relied upon by the insurer. That doesn’t make it right, either. Nor should the fact that some judge might agree with you because he/she has an agenda be a reason to initiate such litigation.
Let’s remember that the exclusion here is really for damage caused by water. The words that come after explain what the various water sources excluded are. Flood is only one of them.
The beginning of the exclusion section already excludes loss caused by excluded perils, “whether directly or indirectly”. And, the beginning of the exclusion section excludes damage resulting from concurrent or sequential perils when one peril is excluded.
The water exclusion then reinforces the exclusion for concurrent or sequential causes of loss, the theory that you espouse, by specifically excluding water damage even if the water damage is caused by one of the sources of water being driven by wind (an otherwise covered peril).
So, the policy excludes the damage whether it was caused directly or indirectly by the excluded peril; and, it excludes the loss even if there is a potentially covered concurrent or sequential peril. I’m really at a loss to figure out how many more different ways to exclude water damage caused by flood. What would you suggest?
Face it; the problem isn’t with the way that the HO3 is worded. The problem is that a lot of people just didn’t buy, for whatever reason, the right coverage. Maybe they couldn’t afford it. Maybe they didn’t buy it because the mortgage company didn’t force them to. Maybe they didn’t buy it because they felt that the risk of being flooded (again, not the only part of the water damage exclusion they might need to worry about) was low.
I do know this, though. Agents make money when they sell products, not when they talk people out of buying products. So, I find it hard to fault the agents. And insurers don’t intentionally mislead people into thinking that they have coverage at the time a policy is sold when the policy clearly and unambiguously excludes the coverage. And I sure as hell hope that my federal tax dollars aren’t going to advertise the need to but flood insurance from the NFIP, and to subsidize “premiums” for a program that duplicates coverage that people already have.
You guys are a bunch of morons. There was an unprecedented 30+ foot surge. He’s talking about people who are NOT in the flood plain, who purchased the insurance they thought they needed and were advised by their lenders and insurers to purchase, and are screwed because of the flood exclusion. Do you advise everyone who lives outside the flood plain to buy flood insurance? If not, then shut up. Blame the bad flood maps maybe, but not the people who lost their houses following the advise of their agents.
Please show me anywhere in the article that they are referring only to homeowner’s outside the flood plain!. I can’t seem to find that specific cause he is fighting for. As for agents or banks not telling them, I say hogwash. I can be if they would have been offered flood insurance for an extra $100 a year, 90% of them would have turned it down. I am all for some kind of federal relief to help out, but I am not ready to turn over my hard earned tax money to people who had a chance to and should have insured their property properly. We have become such a country built on entitlements, that nobody wants to be responsible for themselves anymore.
Well the name appears to fit yourself.
Yes, my agency does suggest that everyone purchase flood insurance in fact if they refuse it, they must sign a rejection form that it was offered and not purchased. And to clear up a misconception, I am not aware of any property that is NOT in a flood zone, some are high risk and some are low risk, but all properties are in some flood zone, even on the top of a mountain. Everyone is given the oppourtunity to protect themselves and purchase insurance coverage, MOST people only buy what is required to close a loan, If an agent tells someone that a flood policy is not required, this does not suggest it is not recommended, it is still available, suggested and a pertinent coverage but may not be necessary to close a loan, and WOE be to any agent that tells an insured they won’t have a flood. Do we really want the federal government to require flood insurance on ALL properties? or still give us American the freedoms to decide for ourselves. We have actually had people pay off their loans in order to get away from paying for flood insurance, I hope the cost savings was worth it for them. If you think insurance is expensive now, just wait until the feds require everyone to have it in order to protect society from itself. It was flood damage and therefore only covered under a flood policy, if you were too cheap to buy it even though it was available, don’t try to blame someone else and don’t try to get me to pay for your loss. Do I think things need to change, Hell yes, people need to be held responsible for the decisions they make in life and then maybe (hopefully) fewer people will make stupid decisions. I am sorry that so many people are affected, but no one should force me or anyone else to pay for uninsured losses, If I give a charitable contribution or personal help that is one thing but thats where my responsibility ends. People were given the option to buy flood coverage and I should have the option to help out of my own free will or decline. The Government’s responsibility to us does not include providing housing to all Americans, it does not include providing food or money to anyone, but since so many people rely on the govenment to think and do for them and provide all the entitlements that they do, it is now expected. What a sad evolution of society we have seen. The government is tax payer funded, how many people that were affected and uninsured are tax payers, or are they living off tax dollars already. I know some are not capable of working, but I have not seen as many of them screaming at the cameras as I have perfectly health people that are just unemployed.
Insurance agents and lenders not only did not push flood insurance out of the flood hazard area, but some of their properties flooded and they did not have flood insurance. This was not a typical hurricane surge. Places were inundated that had any water in the 300-year recorded history of the Coast. Taylor’s bill would have people pay 10 years of premiums and sign an agreement requiring them to have flood insurance in the future. It is for people out of ‘flood hazard area’, it would cover the structure only, not contents, and only up to the amount of wind coverage they had. The only alternative out there would be thousands of defaults and bankruptcies.
“Never been flooded in 300 years” is not a good reason for not buying flood insurance.
If you are a gambler, you should know that past performance is not a good predictor of future results.
Really, residents of MS, LA and AL should all have watched FL last year and learnt their lesson.
I believe that the lessons learned last year from Florida, is that FEMA would take care of you. It was not a very good learning experience, and not a class that I think should be taught again. the difference in Florida is that it was not Flooding, and Fema’s assistance came in the form of Loans and grants, they did not say “Oh Sorry you did not buy Flood insurance, here’s a new house” We hope you buy flood insurance in 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.
Yo, Furry!
You appear to be under the mistaken impression that all coverage litigation is settled in favor of the insured. That is not the case.
Further, all coverage litigation does not result in a finding of bad faith against the insurer, even when the insured prevails.
If the insurer relies upon a reasonable interpretation of the policy, then bad faith does not exist. What makes the interpretation reasonable? Certainly, industry standards and customs, policy wording filing documents, and past interpretations of the same or similar wording, are all factors.
But, first and foremost, the courts are supposed to look to the plain meaning of the terms used, unless the terms used are specifically defined in the policy. Then, they look to the policy definitions. This isn’t just insurance law, its basic contract law.
I’m looking at the HO3 exclusion; the plain meaning and/or policy definitions of the terms used are crystal clear.
To be certain, someone like you can always allege some off the wall interpretation to attempt to introduce an ambiguity where one doesn’t really exist. That doesn’t mean that you are more (or, even) right, or that there is an honest dispute as to the meaning of the terms.
And, I don’t doubt that some politically astute judge will rule in favor of the insured, citing some pretty contrived interpretation as being just as reasonable as the one relied upon by the insurer. That doesn’t make it right, either. Nor should the fact that some judge might agree with you because he/she has an agenda be a reason to initiate such litigation.
Let’s remember that the exclusion here is really for damage caused by water. The words that come after explain what the various water sources excluded are. Flood is only one of them.
The beginning of the exclusion section already excludes loss caused by excluded perils, “whether directly or indirectly”. And, the beginning of the exclusion section excludes damage resulting from concurrent or sequential perils when one peril is excluded.
The water exclusion then reinforces the exclusion for concurrent or sequential causes of loss, the theory that you espouse, by specifically excluding water damage even if the water damage is caused by one of the sources of water being driven by wind (an otherwise covered peril).
So, the policy excludes the damage whether it was caused directly or indirectly by the excluded peril; and, it excludes the loss even if there is a potentially covered concurrent or sequential peril. I’m really at a loss to figure out how many more different ways to exclude water damage caused by flood. What would you suggest?
Face it; the problem isn’t with the way that the HO3 is worded. The problem is that a lot of people just didn’t buy, for whatever reason, the right coverage. Maybe they couldn’t afford it. Maybe they didn’t buy it because the mortgage company didn’t force them to. Maybe they didn’t buy it because they felt that the risk of being flooded (again, not the only part of the water damage exclusion they might need to worry about) was low.
I do know this, though. Agents make money when they sell products, not when they talk people out of buying products. So, I find it hard to fault the agents. And insurers don’t intentionally mislead people into thinking that they have coverage at the time a policy is sold when the policy clearly and unambiguously excludes the coverage. And I sure as hell hope that my federal tax dollars aren’t going to advertise the need to but flood insurance from the NFIP, and to subsidize “premiums” for a program that duplicates coverage that people already have.
Is ANY of that what you REALLY believe, Furry?
You guys are a bunch of morons. There was an unprecedented 30+ foot surge. He’s talking about people who are NOT in the flood plain, who purchased the insurance they thought they needed and were advised by their lenders and insurers to purchase, and are screwed because of the flood exclusion. Do you advise everyone who lives outside the flood plain to buy flood insurance? If not, then shut up. Blame the bad flood maps maybe, but not the people who lost their houses following the advise of their agents.
Please show me anywhere in the article that they are referring only to homeowner’s outside the flood plain!. I can’t seem to find that specific cause he is fighting for. As for agents or banks not telling them, I say hogwash. I can be if they would have been offered flood insurance for an extra $100 a year, 90% of them would have turned it down. I am all for some kind of federal relief to help out, but I am not ready to turn over my hard earned tax money to people who had a chance to and should have insured their property properly. We have become such a country built on entitlements, that nobody wants to be responsible for themselves anymore.
Well the name appears to fit yourself.
Yes, my agency does suggest that everyone purchase flood insurance in fact if they refuse it, they must sign a rejection form that it was offered and not purchased. And to clear up a misconception, I am not aware of any property that is NOT in a flood zone, some are high risk and some are low risk, but all properties are in some flood zone, even on the top of a mountain. Everyone is given the oppourtunity to protect themselves and purchase insurance coverage, MOST people only buy what is required to close a loan, If an agent tells someone that a flood policy is not required, this does not suggest it is not recommended, it is still available, suggested and a pertinent coverage but may not be necessary to close a loan, and WOE be to any agent that tells an insured they won’t have a flood. Do we really want the federal government to require flood insurance on ALL properties? or still give us American the freedoms to decide for ourselves. We have actually had people pay off their loans in order to get away from paying for flood insurance, I hope the cost savings was worth it for them. If you think insurance is expensive now, just wait until the feds require everyone to have it in order to protect society from itself. It was flood damage and therefore only covered under a flood policy, if you were too cheap to buy it even though it was available, don’t try to blame someone else and don’t try to get me to pay for your loss. Do I think things need to change, Hell yes, people need to be held responsible for the decisions they make in life and then maybe (hopefully) fewer people will make stupid decisions. I am sorry that so many people are affected, but no one should force me or anyone else to pay for uninsured losses, If I give a charitable contribution or personal help that is one thing but thats where my responsibility ends. People were given the option to buy flood coverage and I should have the option to help out of my own free will or decline. The Government’s responsibility to us does not include providing housing to all Americans, it does not include providing food or money to anyone, but since so many people rely on the govenment to think and do for them and provide all the entitlements that they do, it is now expected. What a sad evolution of society we have seen. The government is tax payer funded, how many people that were affected and uninsured are tax payers, or are they living off tax dollars already. I know some are not capable of working, but I have not seen as many of them screaming at the cameras as I have perfectly health people that are just unemployed.
Insurance agents and lenders not only did not push flood insurance out of the flood hazard area, but some of their properties flooded and they did not have flood insurance. This was not a typical hurricane surge. Places were inundated that had any water in the 300-year recorded history of the Coast. Taylor’s bill would have people pay 10 years of premiums and sign an agreement requiring them to have flood insurance in the future. It is for people out of ‘flood hazard area’, it would cover the structure only, not contents, and only up to the amount of wind coverage they had. The only alternative out there would be thousands of defaults and bankruptcies.
“Never been flooded in 300 years” is not a good reason for not buying flood insurance.
If you are a gambler, you should know that past performance is not a good predictor of future results.
Really, residents of MS, LA and AL should all have watched FL last year and learnt their lesson.
I believe that the lessons learned last year from Florida, is that FEMA would take care of you. It was not a very good learning experience, and not a class that I think should be taught again. the difference in Florida is that it was not Flooding, and Fema’s assistance came in the form of Loans and grants, they did not say “Oh Sorry you did not buy Flood insurance, here’s a new house” We hope you buy flood insurance in the future.