[QUOTE]
We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of:
(a) the cause of the excluded event; or
(b) other causes of the loss; or
(c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or
(d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: [Listed Exclusions].
[/QUOTE]
If you had wind damage before the storm surge arrived, you would have had wind damage even if the storm surge never arrived. The wind damage is not a \”loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events.\”
Even if the storm surge reduced the home to a slab, the wind damage would not be excluded by this clause, because the wind damage would still have happened without the storm surge.
The judge is simply holding the insurance companies to the policies they actually wrote, rather than the policies they wish they had written.
Mark you are wrong. SF has testified under oath that they did not rely on the anti-concurrent cause clause to deny slabs. They relied on an incorrect burden of proof.
[QUOTE]
We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
[/QUOTE]
It says it doesn\’t cover damage from the excluded perils, even if it\’s concurrent with damage from covered perils. But where does it strip coverage for otherwise-covered perils?
Here\’s a challenge: write a concurrent-causation clause that says what the insurance companies claimed their existing clauses said — that in the case of concurrent causation by covered and excluded perils, all damage is excluded.
Here\’s a first stab at it:
\”We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which occurred in the presence of one or more of the following excluded events.\”
Might have trouble getting that language approved, but at least it\’s clear.
We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by, or in combination with, any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
This exerpt from \”Read the contract\” is the State Farm language…
[QUOTE]
We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of:
(a) the cause of the excluded event; or
(b) other causes of the loss; or
(c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or
(d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: [Listed Exclusions].
[/QUOTE]
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.
For example:
[QUOTE]
We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of:
(a) the cause of the excluded event; or
(b) other causes of the loss; or
(c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or
(d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: [Listed Exclusions].
[/QUOTE]
If you had wind damage before the storm surge arrived, you would have had wind damage even if the storm surge never arrived. The wind damage is not a \”loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events.\”
Even if the storm surge reduced the home to a slab, the wind damage would not be excluded by this clause, because the wind damage would still have happened without the storm surge.
The judge is simply holding the insurance companies to the policies they actually wrote, rather than the policies they wish they had written.
Mark you are wrong. SF has testified under oath that they did not rely on the anti-concurrent cause clause to deny slabs. They relied on an incorrect burden of proof.
ISO HO 00 03 05 01 says:
[QUOTE]
We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
[/QUOTE]
It says it doesn\’t cover damage from the excluded perils, even if it\’s concurrent with damage from covered perils. But where does it strip coverage for otherwise-covered perils?
Here\’s a challenge: write a concurrent-causation clause that says what the insurance companies claimed their existing clauses said — that in the case of concurrent causation by covered and excluded perils, all damage is excluded.
Here\’s a first stab at it:
\”We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which occurred in the presence of one or more of the following excluded events.\”
Might have trouble getting that language approved, but at least it\’s clear.
Please.. don\’t talk about things you don\’t know. STATE FARM DOESN\’T HAVE THE ISO CONTRACT. GOT IT??
We do not insure for loss caused directly or indirectly by, or in combination with, any of the following. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss. These exclusions apply whether or not the loss event results in widespread damage or affects a substantial area.
This exerpt from \”Read the contract\” is the State Farm language…
[QUOTE]
We do not insure under any coverage for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or more of the following excluded events. We do not insure for such loss regardless of:
(a) the cause of the excluded event; or
(b) other causes of the loss; or
(c) whether other causes acted concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the loss; or
(d) whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces, or occurs as a result of any combination of these: [Listed Exclusions].
[/QUOTE]
Getwithit,
That\’s because it bit Nationwide in the a** in a prior trial.
Rhetoric,
Greed is not a crime.
But, since you bring it up, just who is being greedy?
And don\’t just reply with \”State Farm\”, tell me who you think is making money by denying claims.
All of the Settlement Money…
should go Directly to the People,
The Homeowners, Victim of Katrina.
And Not into the hands of Lawyers.
SETTLE DIRECT LOCATIONS:
1. Homeowner & S/F Agree on Amt.
2. Homeowner Signs Release Form
3. Homeowner Leaves with Check
Simple as 1,2, 3
State Farm would Save-Face with
their own Clients.
These people were hit with the worst
natural disaster in the history of the USA.
Damage control: from anger to relief &
From Rejection to Replacement.
Homeowners would be able to rebuild,
with New Construction and with
the Strongest Zoning Codes ever!
In turn State Farm would be rewarded
with generating new premiums.
and insuring new construction by code.
May we all live happily, ever after.
As Good Neighbors!!!!
LESSONS LEARNED:
A new city that would not repeat
the mistakes of our own.
AGENT REGULATIONS
NEW EXPLANATION OF POLICY
A new policy, with the Agent to
completely explain all exclusions
with detailed explanation & why.
Agents were supposed to explain the
benefits & exclusions in the products
they represent and sell.
A way of reinvesting with each other.
That is what a GOOD NEIGHBOR should do.
End of Story, Turn the page.
FROM RUIN TO RECOVERY…
The South Shall Rise Again!
This Money…..Did Come From
The Homeowners to begin with.
This Money is for Katrina Victims
that survived the worst disaster in the USA.
We\’ve Been Thru Enough.
Loosing Everything.
Some lost loved ones
Some lost their life.
Red Tape, Small Print, FEMA,
Post Traumatic Stress,
by the time we are able to build
a home…..
we may simply have a
nervous breakdown in it.
The Mississippi Homeowners…
destroyed by Katrina,
Need a Home to Live In.
Seems everyone else has profited
except for the people who were hit.
Why allow the Lawyers to end up with
more money than the homeless