What\’s the problem – everything is working great in FL. Citizens is in debt but lawmakers just signed legislation requiring that they reduce premiums and refund money (remember Citizens is already in debt). We are now going to enjoy lower premiums because this law has increased the FL Catastrophic Fund by 16 billion dollars (this money magically materialized).
This one is on the republicans like Trnt Lott. See, even Republicans are anti-big business when they want to rip you off and get paid. Pretty interesting. Where are the repubs now??
this is one of the many problems with our country\’s politics, trying to bash a politician, turning every issue into a \”political\” one, this had nothing to do with \”big business\”
\”DR. Rivera\”…these are not state courts they are FEDERAL court rulings. The real fraud perpetrated has been companies like SF who have and are attempting to write off all the damage to surge water and leaving the NFIP holding the bill. Water and WIND destroyed these homes and the claimants should be compensated correctly. 100%… probably not, but there in lies Senters ruling, it is on the INSURER who is denying claims to produce evidence of percentage of destruction attributable to both causes and payout accordingly. In the absence of being able to do so they should have negotiated a settlement rather than flat deny the claim and THAT is the reason he awarded policy limits in the early case.
Where SF and many of the companies screwed themselves here was they initially began ordering engineering reports and adjusters reports and then when they werent getting the results they wanted, they sent MORE adjusters out and stopped the engineering reports. There is nothing cut and dried about any of this.
Well, they won\’t have to worry about that settlement anymore. The judge ruled yesterday it was unfair to policyholders. If the readers here would bother themselves with the facts instead of the rhetoric they\’d know why. SF\’s going down and they deserve to. No sweetheart deals allowed here. Remember when everyone was hollering \”a contract is a contract\”? Well that\’s what the judge is saying. They owe UNDER THE CONTRACT THEY WROTE. Pay up and then get out if you\’d like. Good riddance.
Mississippians believe one should live up to their obligations. A contact is a contract and the Federal Judge agrees. Too bad for Louisiana that their AG is bought out. The people of Louisiana were lowballed and had valid claims rejected as well but those with power are not fighting for their justice. These tactics have been used universally in large catastrophes except maybe 9/11 because the national sentiment and media attention would not have allowed it. Only those that have had a catastrophic event understand how the insurance companies treat claims. Maybe the congressional hearing will finally shine the light on these practices.
I won\’t spend time arguing Judge Senter\’s ruling on Broussard v. State Farm. It is what it is, and I understand his reasoning, even if it is inccorrect.
However, there was no great conspiracy by the insurance industry to defraud the public, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.
The reason SF was denying these slab claims (and not trying to calculate the percentage wind damage) is because of the anti-concurrent causation clause in their policy. There is no arguing the point that the storm surge was responsible for completely destroying these \”slab losses\”. If there was some wind damage to the structure prior to the surge is excluded by the anti-concurrent causation language.
Now with some of these lawsuits, the claim is that the anti-concurrent causation clause goes agianst Mississippi law. If that is indeed the case, then SF should have paid those claims, BUT the policy was approved by the Mississippi Department of Insurance, so the claim adjusters applied the policy language to the \”slab\” losses and denied them.
Where are the fingers pointing at the Dept. of Insurance?
Were they negligent in approving policy language contrary to Mississippi law?
Could it be that the Dept. of Insurance has perpetrated fraud against the people of the state of Mississippi?
That is exactly the point Mark. State law does not allow it, thus the state insurance commission should not have approved the language. There is existing case law in this state which denies the use of concurrent causation. What Judge Senter has ruled even earlier than this case is two things, one, the concurrent causation will not stand up in court, AND that the burden of proof as to the percentage of destruction lies with the insurer.
As for a conspiracy..i would agree with that. What they did in many cases was just decide to hide behind the NFIP whenever and wherever possible. In my personal case ( slabbed by the way ) my insurance company when provided with irrefutable proof that my home was nearly destroyed BEFORE the surge ever reached it conceded to a fair settlement under my wind policy. Their negotiator even admitted after we had a signed agreement that when faced with a proponderance of evidence of damage BEFORE surge they were compelled to pay for damages becuase they felt the anti-concurrent causation portion of their policy was uneforceable due to the fact that there was case law in MS to strike it down. In my own case it took three adjusters to get to that point. #1, hell he stood on my foundation and told me he was going to submit a \”pay in full\” report becuase HE couldnt determine how and when the damage occured. #2, he came out after #1, and offered my 5,413 dollars on a 330,000 claim. #3, was assigned after I spent $7,500 to prove my case, and we settled for about 56% of policy value.
You are right the MS insurance commission may be at ultimate fault, lord knows DALE is in the pocket of the Insurance companies. They account for about 80% of his campaign contributions. And in the end I suspect MS Law will trump insurance regulations, at least those are the rulings so far.
My you have got to be kidding example comes from my brothers home. He lived at the top of the surge zone. Had only 8 inchs of water in his home. BUT, the roof came off and the front of the house collapsed. Insurance company for over 13 months claimed that the roof and collapse was due to the 8 inchs of water. They finally agreed after 13 months that wind took the roof, which facilitated the collapse of the front walls of the home. Seriously it was obvious to even the most undeducated person what happened. Rightly so, he WAS NOT compensated for the floors or sheet rock damage or content damage on the first floor. Everything else eventually he was. My point is this, HIS is not an isolated case as many would have you believe. And it certainly shouldnt have taken that long to resolve.
What the concurrent causation clause actually says is that if there is damage by water and by wind, the damage by water is excluded. It does *not* say that the wind damage is excluded, even though the companies would like it to say that.
I\’d like to see even one concurrent causation clause that actually says what the companies have been claiming they say.
I\’ve read many of them, and they don\’t say what the companies have been claiming they said, they say what the judge, AG, and policy holders have been claiming they said: damage from excluded perils is not covered, even if it is concurrent with damage from covered perils. But they don\’t then go on to say the damage from the covered peril is also excluded if it occurs concurrently with damage from an excluded peril.
If you disagree, pull out one of these contracts and post the actual language of the concurrent causation clause, and show where it says damage from covered perils is excluded.
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\’s the problem – everything is working great in FL. Citizens is in debt but lawmakers just signed legislation requiring that they reduce premiums and refund money (remember Citizens is already in debt). We are now going to enjoy lower premiums because this law has increased the FL Catastrophic Fund by 16 billion dollars (this money magically materialized).
This one is on the republicans like Trnt Lott. See, even Republicans are anti-big business when they want to rip you off and get paid. Pretty interesting. Where are the repubs now??
this is one of the many problems with our country\’s politics, trying to bash a politician, turning every issue into a \”political\” one, this had nothing to do with \”big business\”
\”DR. Rivera\”…these are not state courts they are FEDERAL court rulings. The real fraud perpetrated has been companies like SF who have and are attempting to write off all the damage to surge water and leaving the NFIP holding the bill. Water and WIND destroyed these homes and the claimants should be compensated correctly. 100%… probably not, but there in lies Senters ruling, it is on the INSURER who is denying claims to produce evidence of percentage of destruction attributable to both causes and payout accordingly. In the absence of being able to do so they should have negotiated a settlement rather than flat deny the claim and THAT is the reason he awarded policy limits in the early case.
Where SF and many of the companies screwed themselves here was they initially began ordering engineering reports and adjusters reports and then when they werent getting the results they wanted, they sent MORE adjusters out and stopped the engineering reports. There is nothing cut and dried about any of this.
Well, they won\’t have to worry about that settlement anymore. The judge ruled yesterday it was unfair to policyholders. If the readers here would bother themselves with the facts instead of the rhetoric they\’d know why. SF\’s going down and they deserve to. No sweetheart deals allowed here. Remember when everyone was hollering \”a contract is a contract\”? Well that\’s what the judge is saying. They owe UNDER THE CONTRACT THEY WROTE. Pay up and then get out if you\’d like. Good riddance.
Mississippians believe one should live up to their obligations. A contact is a contract and the Federal Judge agrees. Too bad for Louisiana that their AG is bought out. The people of Louisiana were lowballed and had valid claims rejected as well but those with power are not fighting for their justice. These tactics have been used universally in large catastrophes except maybe 9/11 because the national sentiment and media attention would not have allowed it. Only those that have had a catastrophic event understand how the insurance companies treat claims. Maybe the congressional hearing will finally shine the light on these practices.
William,
I won\’t spend time arguing Judge Senter\’s ruling on Broussard v. State Farm. It is what it is, and I understand his reasoning, even if it is inccorrect.
However, there was no great conspiracy by the insurance industry to defraud the public, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise.
The reason SF was denying these slab claims (and not trying to calculate the percentage wind damage) is because of the anti-concurrent causation clause in their policy. There is no arguing the point that the storm surge was responsible for completely destroying these \”slab losses\”. If there was some wind damage to the structure prior to the surge is excluded by the anti-concurrent causation language.
Now with some of these lawsuits, the claim is that the anti-concurrent causation clause goes agianst Mississippi law. If that is indeed the case, then SF should have paid those claims, BUT the policy was approved by the Mississippi Department of Insurance, so the claim adjusters applied the policy language to the \”slab\” losses and denied them.
Where are the fingers pointing at the Dept. of Insurance?
Were they negligent in approving policy language contrary to Mississippi law?
Could it be that the Dept. of Insurance has perpetrated fraud against the people of the state of Mississippi?
That is exactly the point Mark. State law does not allow it, thus the state insurance commission should not have approved the language. There is existing case law in this state which denies the use of concurrent causation. What Judge Senter has ruled even earlier than this case is two things, one, the concurrent causation will not stand up in court, AND that the burden of proof as to the percentage of destruction lies with the insurer.
As for a conspiracy..i would agree with that. What they did in many cases was just decide to hide behind the NFIP whenever and wherever possible. In my personal case ( slabbed by the way ) my insurance company when provided with irrefutable proof that my home was nearly destroyed BEFORE the surge ever reached it conceded to a fair settlement under my wind policy. Their negotiator even admitted after we had a signed agreement that when faced with a proponderance of evidence of damage BEFORE surge they were compelled to pay for damages becuase they felt the anti-concurrent causation portion of their policy was uneforceable due to the fact that there was case law in MS to strike it down. In my own case it took three adjusters to get to that point. #1, hell he stood on my foundation and told me he was going to submit a \”pay in full\” report becuase HE couldnt determine how and when the damage occured. #2, he came out after #1, and offered my 5,413 dollars on a 330,000 claim. #3, was assigned after I spent $7,500 to prove my case, and we settled for about 56% of policy value.
You are right the MS insurance commission may be at ultimate fault, lord knows DALE is in the pocket of the Insurance companies. They account for about 80% of his campaign contributions. And in the end I suspect MS Law will trump insurance regulations, at least those are the rulings so far.
My you have got to be kidding example comes from my brothers home. He lived at the top of the surge zone. Had only 8 inchs of water in his home. BUT, the roof came off and the front of the house collapsed. Insurance company for over 13 months claimed that the roof and collapse was due to the 8 inchs of water. They finally agreed after 13 months that wind took the roof, which facilitated the collapse of the front walls of the home. Seriously it was obvious to even the most undeducated person what happened. Rightly so, he WAS NOT compensated for the floors or sheet rock damage or content damage on the first floor. Everything else eventually he was. My point is this, HIS is not an isolated case as many would have you believe. And it certainly shouldnt have taken that long to resolve.
What the concurrent causation clause actually says is that if there is damage by water and by wind, the damage by water is excluded. It does *not* say that the wind damage is excluded, even though the companies would like it to say that.
I\’d like to see even one concurrent causation clause that actually says what the companies have been claiming they say.
I\’ve read many of them, and they don\’t say what the companies have been claiming they said, they say what the judge, AG, and policy holders have been claiming they said: damage from excluded perils is not covered, even if it is concurrent with damage from covered perils. But they don\’t then go on to say the damage from the covered peril is also excluded if it occurs concurrently with damage from an excluded peril.
If you disagree, pull out one of these contracts and post the actual language of the concurrent causation clause, and show where it says damage from covered perils is excluded.
Mark,
Its called greed.