If you have a problem, try reading it again & put \”without regard\” in place of irregardless & you will better understand the just of what I was getting at.
For your information we had not one inch of storm surge or flood waters. Still had to sue my carrier to get them to pay up. The insurance companies have fought to keep all the lawsuits in Federal Courts themselves because they also consider them more conservative, pro-business, etc……
The problem here appears to be the striking down of the concurrent cause clause, which was designed precisely to avoid this sort of indeterminancy problem. Senter appears to be holding that the plaintiffs met their burden of proof that there was wind simply by showing there was a hurricane, and that the insurer has the burden to show that there was a flood. But there was a flood, so I don\’t begin to understand why the fact of the flood doesn\’t swing the burden right back to the plaintiff, and require a directed verdict in the other direction under Senter\’s reasoning. Especially since there was more than circumstantial evidence that the hurricane winds didn\’t cause the house to explode.
30 years ago, before my transition to agency, I worked the CATS for one of the big three companies, now being hammered by Katrina litigation. I wrote millions of $$ in claim checks to hurricane/storm surge victims. (yes flood/tidal etc was exclude then also). It\’s not all that complicated this wind/water thing.
Back in the days of common sense, we inspected every site 14/7, and recorded the height of the closest high water mark, usually a tree or a utility pole. We leveled that mark to where the home was. The percentage of home above the mark was the percentage we paid of the policy limits, even for contents and living expenses. We moved on, not wasting time nickel & diming. If there was a flood policy, the flood people paid for the percentage below the mark. This was the starting point for settlement, not the end point. All claims were left open for about a year. If more $$ were requested, then more documentation was needed and the local claims staff handled the supplemental. Everyone usually had a check on this settlement basis within 60 days. Very common sense and straightforward, when no one could ever determine what peril caused what damage, at what time. We all knew that something was owed on the policy claim. It was fair and understood by 99.99% of the victims.(and adjusters)
Now we have companies spending a godzillion $$ advertising \”On Your Side\”, \’Good Hands People\”, Good Neighbor\” etc, and what do they actually do? Spend millions of dollars to engineers to prove the unprovable, deny coastal claims wholesale without inspections, and arrogantly assume that only one non covered peril caused all or most of the damage at the same instant in time.
These types of upper management decisions have historically only breed more attorneys. And since more than one company, but not all, took the same settlement approach, the Fed politicos will probably look into the collusion aspect, resulting in more regulatory oversite. Just what we need.
The sad part is that the management folks that made these brilliant decisions will likely be promoted (they can\’t fire them or it looks like mistakes were made therby damaging thier legal defenses)thereby assuring the profitability of future generations of attorneys.
Stop blaming the attorneys, the companies created them. \”we have met the enemy, and they is us\” Pogo
Senter\’s ruling specifically upheld the anti-concurrent clause of the contract.
But since the company\’s own documents showed there was wind damage as well as flood damage, and since the company refused to apportion damage between covered wind loss and excluded flood loss, Senter said he had no choice but to interpret the contract in favor of the insured. (See the New York Times for more details than fit in the IJ article.)
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.
maybe not, but you understood it.
If you have a problem, try reading it again & put \”without regard\” in place of irregardless & you will better understand the just of what I was getting at.
Picky Picky Picky!!!
Have a great day!
Excuse me you need to get your facts straight. Judge Senter is consider pro-businees, republican, conservative, etc…..
and how much more are you sqeezing your carrier for?
For your information we had not one inch of storm surge or flood waters. Still had to sue my carrier to get them to pay up. The insurance companies have fought to keep all the lawsuits in Federal Courts themselves because they also consider them more conservative, pro-business, etc……
If you had no damage why would you sue your carrier to pay up? What do you want them to pay for?
I guess I did not understand your comment if you had no damage & you want to get paid someting…..
Please clarify.
Wind and tree damage!!!!!!
The problem here appears to be the striking down of the concurrent cause clause, which was designed precisely to avoid this sort of indeterminancy problem. Senter appears to be holding that the plaintiffs met their burden of proof that there was wind simply by showing there was a hurricane, and that the insurer has the burden to show that there was a flood. But there was a flood, so I don\’t begin to understand why the fact of the flood doesn\’t swing the burden right back to the plaintiff, and require a directed verdict in the other direction under Senter\’s reasoning. Especially since there was more than circumstantial evidence that the hurricane winds didn\’t cause the house to explode.
30 years ago, before my transition to agency, I worked the CATS for one of the big three companies, now being hammered by Katrina litigation. I wrote millions of $$ in claim checks to hurricane/storm surge victims. (yes flood/tidal etc was exclude then also). It\’s not all that complicated this wind/water thing.
Back in the days of common sense, we inspected every site 14/7, and recorded the height of the closest high water mark, usually a tree or a utility pole. We leveled that mark to where the home was. The percentage of home above the mark was the percentage we paid of the policy limits, even for contents and living expenses. We moved on, not wasting time nickel & diming. If there was a flood policy, the flood people paid for the percentage below the mark. This was the starting point for settlement, not the end point. All claims were left open for about a year. If more $$ were requested, then more documentation was needed and the local claims staff handled the supplemental. Everyone usually had a check on this settlement basis within 60 days. Very common sense and straightforward, when no one could ever determine what peril caused what damage, at what time. We all knew that something was owed on the policy claim. It was fair and understood by 99.99% of the victims.(and adjusters)
Now we have companies spending a godzillion $$ advertising \”On Your Side\”, \’Good Hands People\”, Good Neighbor\” etc, and what do they actually do? Spend millions of dollars to engineers to prove the unprovable, deny coastal claims wholesale without inspections, and arrogantly assume that only one non covered peril caused all or most of the damage at the same instant in time.
These types of upper management decisions have historically only breed more attorneys. And since more than one company, but not all, took the same settlement approach, the Fed politicos will probably look into the collusion aspect, resulting in more regulatory oversite. Just what we need.
The sad part is that the management folks that made these brilliant decisions will likely be promoted (they can\’t fire them or it looks like mistakes were made therby damaging thier legal defenses)thereby assuring the profitability of future generations of attorneys.
Stop blaming the attorneys, the companies created them. \”we have met the enemy, and they is us\” Pogo
Go Girl,….
I agree 100%.
Senter\’s ruling specifically upheld the anti-concurrent clause of the contract.
But since the company\’s own documents showed there was wind damage as well as flood damage, and since the company refused to apportion damage between covered wind loss and excluded flood loss, Senter said he had no choice but to interpret the contract in favor of the insured. (See the New York Times for more details than fit in the IJ article.)