Tobacco-trial Lawyer ‘Poster Child’ for Katrina Insurance

May 10, 2006

  • May 12, 2006 at 7:35 am
    doncha get it? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Since I\’m at ground zero and you guys apparently are uninformed about what\’s really going on down here, let me explain a couple of things: (1) why should anyone care if they can get insurance when the company won\’t pay one cent when your house is totally destroyed? (2) the fact that Trent Lott and Gene Taylor are suing should tell you how unreasonable the insurance companies are being.. these guys have been elected on corporate money. But the fact is the insurance companies\’ refusal to pay legitimate claims is destroying an entire area of the country. There\’s nothing left to insure.

  • May 12, 2006 at 11:29 am
    doncha get it? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    And your assumption that all losses were caused by flood is based on what? Must be a miracle that the only homes that had NO wind damage on the entire Gulf Coast are those that were totally destroyed. Wow.. what are the odds of that? And your assumption that Lott et al had no flood insurance is based on what? In fact, he did, but (as you should know since you\’re the professional) it\’s capped out at $250,000. It\’s unconscionable and untenable to take premiums for decades for wind damage and then pay ZERO when a house is totally destroyed in the largest wind event in 35 years. If you want to know the truth, you\’ll have to learn some facts and when you do, you\’ll realize there\’s a valid basis for the litigation..the insurance companies are in deep trouble.

  • May 13, 2006 at 12:40 pm
    southern agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Lott SAID he had no flood coverage on the NEWS, is where I got it. Why don\’t YOU get your facts straight. AND if the insurance companies are in trouble, like you predict, then we\’re ALL in trouble because it means that contract law means nothing, duh.
    Further, I\’ve been there, walked there, cried for myself there and cried for others there, lost my stuff there and lost two good friends there, still haven\’t found their bodies.
    Where there\’s NOTHING left, the water blew it away. I\’ve reached this conclusion LOOKING at the evidence, touching the evidence and seeing for myself. Have you, Gotcha?
    I am not an adjuster but an agent and I am deeply saddened by everyone\’s losses. It\’s tragic but a part of life when you live where hurricanes can slam you. Just like if you boat alot, you could sink, if you can understand that, or if you drive a car you can get in a wreck. If you get in a wreck and it\’s your fault and you don\’t have collision on your car, insurance doesn\’t pay for your car because it would make you feel good. You never paid for the coverage and, we hope, contract law protects the company from having to pay for your wrecked car. They would pay if you bought collision because contract law dictates it.
    God help us in the future.

  • May 12, 2006 at 1:38 am
    Southern Agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why didn\’t they have Flood Insurance?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????You could look out Trent Lott\’s front door and see the Gulf 100 feet away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • May 12, 2006 at 1:55 am
    Whose responsibility is it??? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Anyone who lives in/on a coastal area should buy floor insurance. If they do not, they have risked having no insurance. It is the homeowners responsibility to be sure they have coverage for losses and since that area is and will always be prone to hurricanes, why were they not concerned enough to be sure they were covered for that type of loss, regardless of how damage occurred? Look in the mirror to see why and stop expecting insurance companies to pay for something when the contract/policy specifically excluded it.

  • May 13, 2006 at 8:11 am
    doncha get it? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You\’re mistaken as to whether Senator Lott had flood insurance. As the Sun Herald reported, \”Katrina left a slab where the Lotts\’ waterfront home once stood. Because he was in a flood zone, Lott had flood insurance, but $250,000 is the maximum coverage available under those policies.\”http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13419725.htm
    You say where\’s there\’s nothing left, the water blew it away.. Well the question is what did the wind do before the water destroyed the evidence. And for the industry to claim \”sorry, no evidence of wind damage\” (chuckle, chuckle) where the water washed away the remnants of homes that were obviously battered by wind, is dishonest, unethical, immoral, and yes, contrary to the contract.

  • May 13, 2006 at 10:18 am
    southern agent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Look at it this way:
    (regardless weather Lott has Flood Ins. or not)
    You\’re driving your car, you get in a wreck. You\’re hurt so you go to the hospital in an ambulance but before you go you check out your car and you estimate there\’s $5000 worth of damage and leave in the ambulance. After you\’re released from the hospital you go to get your car but it\’s stolen-gone, forever. Your insurance pays you $24,000 for your car as that\’s the NADA value, BUT should you also get the additional $5000 you estimated that the damage from the wreck was? To now total $29,000. I don\’t think so.

  • May 13, 2006 at 11:00 am
    doncha get it? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    do you seriously believe anyone who has a slab instead of a house is making money on this storm?? Max flood = $250,000. House worth $500,000+++ Wind pays zero despite the fact that hours and hours of high winds far beyond what the house is designed to withstand occur before the water gets there. Gee, not even pay for a roof? Refrigerator contents? Debris removal? How about the shed that wasn\’t anchored down? Maybe the fence? Wouldn\’t the wind have caused ANY damage to these homes? It did everywhere else. Gimme a break. The only ones making money off this storm are the greedy insurance companies who took premiums for decades based on fear of the policyholders that they would lose their homes and then when the \”big one\” finally occurs they say, sorry, you get nothing.

  • May 13, 2006 at 11:19 am
    SOUTHERN AGENT says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    What\’s your point? We\’re talking contract law here. If you want to \”feel good\” send a donation to St Patrick Church, Port Sulphur, Louisiana.

  • May 15, 2006 at 7:27 am
    Mark H says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Doncha, you don\’t get it…

    You stated: \”You say where\’s there\’s nothing left, the water blew it away.. Well the question is what did the wind do before the water destroyed the evidence.\”

    No, that\’s not the question. The question is \”Will the anti-concurrent causation clause in the policy hold up in court?\” The water damage exclusion excludes damage that occurred in any sequence to the excluded event. This is not the first time someone in history has come up with that argument, and in most cases it has been decided in favor of the insurance contract. Which, by the way, was approved by the state insurance department.

    I would also like to comment on your last statement: \”And for the industry to claim \”sorry, no evidence of wind damage\” (chuckle, chuckle) where the water washed away the remnants of homes that were obviously battered by wind, is dishonest, unethical, immoral, and yes, contrary to the contract.\”

    First, it\’s not contrary to the contract… see above (and read your policy).

    Second, I take offense at your \”(chuckle, chuckle)\” remark. Most of the claims people who went to the Gulf Coast to assist after Katrina struck left their families to help settle claims. Maybe you were caught in the aftermath, but we drove into it! Many of them with my company lived in campers for months, only seeing their families for Christmas. I was lucky enough to get a hotel room (albeit small) when I arrived. Working claims during a catastrophe is thankless work, mainly due to people with attitudes like yours, who perpetuate the notion that the big bad insurance company and their minions are chuckling all the way to the bank. SHAME ON YOU AND YOUR KIND!

    We work hard to pay claims based on the coverages afforded by the contract that the insured accepted. PERIOD! It\’s not my money to spend or else I\’d hand it out like free popcorn at the car lot. Well, when I write a check to an insured, I\’m spending YOUR money and your neighbor\’s money, and the guy across the states\’ money. Would you like me to spend it wisely or just give it out by the fistful?

    You need to pay close attention to the outcome of these lawsuits. If successful, you may get paid for your non-covered damage, but you will never get another mortgage in the state again, because there will be no affordable insurance to back the loan. Maybe \”Dickey\” will give his millions to his friends and neighbors to rebuild the coast.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*