That is really not material in this case. The carrier is making the incorrect assumption that the dwelling sustained no physical damage from wind. Now, can you or anyone else guarantee that there was no physical damage from wind beofre the flood? I don\’t think so, therefore the wind insuror is obligated to look through the neighborhood and see dwellings which are still standing and pay for similar wind damage as seen on those houses still standing. That is the honorable and prudent manner to handle these type claims. There is jurisprudence to support this.
While I like stupid lawyer/judge jokes as much as anyone, it\’s important that we don\’t forget that for every greedy plaintiff\’s attorney and/or stupid judge, there\’s an attorney on the other side, defending common sense and reason.
The article says the claim was fully denied without any payment. There is no indication that the Judge wants anything other than the \”probable damage\” caused by wind, ie roof, decking, upstairs ceilings, etc. The carriers have become very arrogant in their denials of the entire claim, even that portion which could be related to wind. Reputable carriers are payaing damages above the flood line, even if the dwelling is completely destroyed!
I think I will start a HO company in the Southeast that will insurer all dwellings for any cause of loss. Enough of this bickering about wind/flood damage. Rating will be simple. $125,000 replacement cost policy? $125,000 first year premium. 10% of replacement cost annual premium thereafter. Then if you have a loss, I guarantee I will pay it, no matter the cause.
Yes, it\’s really quite amazing. The only homes on the Gulf Coast that sustained absolutely no wind damage are the ones that are completely gone. But the insurance industry\’s attitude is well reflected by the posts here.. us people in Miss. are just plain stupid you say. And crooked and greedy. How dare us find something rotten in Denmark and have the temerity to do something about it!
Even if you have 3 policies (wind, flood, ho3), as some do, and each carries a limit of $100000, $100000 is all that you should get and no more, even if the wind damages some part of it, then it gets flooded, and then what remains burnt.
-If the dwelling is completely destroyed, where is the flood line?
-How are you, as an adjuster, going to determine the actual wind damage to the insured dwelling based on looking at other structures?
-How will you determine the room measurements, quality of the buiding materials, and other critical scoping items, which translate into an accurate estimate?
-You will not have an accurate estimate, so how will that stand up in court when the insured sues because you did not pay the policy limits?
-Does the policy contain \”Concurrent Causation\” language applicable to the water damage exclusion?
-Have you ever seen an insurance policy that covers \”probable damage\”?
So it is your invaluable opinion that a homeowner is not entitled to be fully indemnified for his or her loss. I sure am glad you don\’t make the decisions.
So your soluton is to ignore the fact that the house did sustain some wind damage. The burden of proof in a civil trial is the preponderence of the evidence, which means that if neighboring houses sustained wind damages, it is logical that the insured risk sustained damage also. Regarding the flood line, the engineer\’s report the carrier is using has a hypothetical storm surge line which the carrier uses to deny the claim, so why should not the homeowner be able to use it to establish the flood line. It is the insured\’s duty to provide the actual dimensions of each room, however, the foot print of the slab can be used to verify this and the insured can also thru photos of the risk which relatives might have or even from neighbors to attest. It ain\’t difficult to confirm or deny brick vener or frame and shettrock walls and ceilings. The flooring could be more trying, but the average pricing for the type development again would fit the preponderance of the evidence and reasonable man theories of ajudication.
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.
That is really not material in this case. The carrier is making the incorrect assumption that the dwelling sustained no physical damage from wind. Now, can you or anyone else guarantee that there was no physical damage from wind beofre the flood? I don\’t think so, therefore the wind insuror is obligated to look through the neighborhood and see dwellings which are still standing and pay for similar wind damage as seen on those houses still standing. That is the honorable and prudent manner to handle these type claims. There is jurisprudence to support this.
While I like stupid lawyer/judge jokes as much as anyone, it\’s important that we don\’t forget that for every greedy plaintiff\’s attorney and/or stupid judge, there\’s an attorney on the other side, defending common sense and reason.
The article says the claim was fully denied without any payment. There is no indication that the Judge wants anything other than the \”probable damage\” caused by wind, ie roof, decking, upstairs ceilings, etc. The carriers have become very arrogant in their denials of the entire claim, even that portion which could be related to wind. Reputable carriers are payaing damages above the flood line, even if the dwelling is completely destroyed!
I think I will start a HO company in the Southeast that will insurer all dwellings for any cause of loss. Enough of this bickering about wind/flood damage. Rating will be simple. $125,000 replacement cost policy? $125,000 first year premium. 10% of replacement cost annual premium thereafter. Then if you have a loss, I guarantee I will pay it, no matter the cause.
If the house was washed away, what is there to pay on it?
Yes, it\’s really quite amazing. The only homes on the Gulf Coast that sustained absolutely no wind damage are the ones that are completely gone. But the insurance industry\’s attitude is well reflected by the posts here.. us people in Miss. are just plain stupid you say. And crooked and greedy. How dare us find something rotten in Denmark and have the temerity to do something about it!
Even if you have 3 policies (wind, flood, ho3), as some do, and each carries a limit of $100000, $100000 is all that you should get and no more, even if the wind damages some part of it, then it gets flooded, and then what remains burnt.
George,
-If the dwelling is completely destroyed, where is the flood line?
-How are you, as an adjuster, going to determine the actual wind damage to the insured dwelling based on looking at other structures?
-How will you determine the room measurements, quality of the buiding materials, and other critical scoping items, which translate into an accurate estimate?
-You will not have an accurate estimate, so how will that stand up in court when the insured sues because you did not pay the policy limits?
-Does the policy contain \”Concurrent Causation\” language applicable to the water damage exclusion?
-Have you ever seen an insurance policy that covers \”probable damage\”?
So it is your invaluable opinion that a homeowner is not entitled to be fully indemnified for his or her loss. I sure am glad you don\’t make the decisions.
So your soluton is to ignore the fact that the house did sustain some wind damage. The burden of proof in a civil trial is the preponderence of the evidence, which means that if neighboring houses sustained wind damages, it is logical that the insured risk sustained damage also. Regarding the flood line, the engineer\’s report the carrier is using has a hypothetical storm surge line which the carrier uses to deny the claim, so why should not the homeowner be able to use it to establish the flood line. It is the insured\’s duty to provide the actual dimensions of each room, however, the foot print of the slab can be used to verify this and the insured can also thru photos of the risk which relatives might have or even from neighbors to attest. It ain\’t difficult to confirm or deny brick vener or frame and shettrock walls and ceilings. The flooring could be more trying, but the average pricing for the type development again would fit the preponderance of the evidence and reasonable man theories of ajudication.