USAA Defends Its Katrina Response Against Comments by Miss. AG Hood

February 1, 2007

  • February 1, 2007 at 1:19 am
    Read The Contract says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Wonder if State Farm could have avoided punitive damages by doing something as simple as paying for covered wind damage while excluding flood damage?

  • February 1, 2007 at 9:40 am
    William says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    As a USAA member who was slabbed, in general, I agree with the comments of the USAA spokesperson. However his contention that they worked from the \”we paid for wind\” from the being idea is a bit of a stretch. It took me nearly 8 months to reach a settlement with USAA, WHO when forced to look at the perponderance of evidence paid for damage we could resonably attribute to wind.

  • February 1, 2007 at 11:19 am
    Nawlins says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    You are so very right. However, I don\’t believe we will ever see this happen.

  • February 2, 2007 at 1:51 am
    Robert J. Koenig says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    United Services Automobile Association is an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange: wherein each subscriber/policy holder is responsible to pay all the claims of all the other members. USAA is not a corporation or even a mutual insurance corporation – as is State Farm.

    I note in passing that attorney Richard Scruggs, whose house was constructively slabbed, is a USAA policyholder. I find it infinitely amusing that Scruggs has achieved a settlement for slabbed State Farmers – but not for his own slabbed self. There is a certain poetic irony there: cobbler’s children going without shoes or something like that.

    The problem at USAA is that the attorney in fact [AIF], Robert G. Davis, persists in importuning the putative \”members\” of this unincorporated entity that they belong to a special club where their special unified interests (as military or former military officers) will be looked after in a particularly sensitive and special manner.

    Right!

    But when you scrutinize the record at USAA, it is clear that Robert G. Davis (and Herres and McDermott before him) are abundantly fierce litigators against the very beneficiaries whose funds \”they hold in trust\” as the individual personal attorney-in-fact and trustee for each of the individual 2.5 million members of USAA.

    And how can that be — and why does the trustee and attorney in fact for all that money abuse his own beneficiaries? Just Google “USAA v anybody” — and you will be perfectly amazed at Robert G. Davis’s systematic pattern of litigation against his own beneficiaries.

    Robert G. Davis loves to litigate: like his friend in the White House — Robert G. Davis’s attitude about litigation is “bring it on”.

    But the real reason why Robert G. Davis is in love with his $2 billion litigation reserve is that this $2,000,000,000 is removed from the supervision of the Texas Department of Insurance and becomes the slush fund by which Robert G. Davis palm’s the members funds and invests it in outrageous enterprises that have nothing to do with the operation of an unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange.

    And the reason why USAA members get so mad is that the epiphany that they are not special and are about to have to litigate with and against their own fellow members is a very unpleasant denouement.

    Robert G. Davis and his lawyers and co-conspirators don’t like me because I persist in writing this sort of trash about them.

    In fact, because I can not bring myself to stop writing about this fascinating con-man, Robert G. Davis actually induced Nassau County (NY) Supreme Court Judge Robert Roberto to throw me in jail for a week over the Christmas season in 2005.

    Judge Roberto extorted $25,000 from my family to let me out – and stole the money.

    Nothing concentrates the mind like going to jail.

    But if you want to stay ahead of the curve at and about USAA, stay tuned to the legal case True v USAA which is about to unfold in US District Court for the Western District of Texas: you can track that case at true-v-usaa.com.

    (PS: I live in Cairo, Egypt and the Swiss Phone number, +41.22.5481638, is for real.)

  • February 1, 2007 at 3:11 am
    reason says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    State Farm did pay for wind damage on those homes that had both wind and flood damages. The disputes all arose out of those homes where nothing was left but the slab. On the claims that were denied they took the approach that surge caused alal the damages, thus flood related, and then claim denied. Whether they were right or wrong on their conclusions will be decided in the future court cases.

  • February 2, 2007 at 5:33 am
    William says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dude…. first your web address doesnt work…giving you NO credibilidty, and two, USAA has 5.6 million members. If you cant even lie correctly… I call BS.

  • February 1, 2007 at 5:33 am
    gill fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Now that litigation with State Farm has
    concluded to a degree, other carriers in the South can prepare to get trashed in the media for their claim handling processes. Surge isn\’t covered – prepare to see the lesser companies get caught up in the arm flailing.

  • February 1, 2007 at 5:53 am
    temblor says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Sorry, not true. In the first case decided by Judge Senter, he awarded ~$2,000 for wind damage and ruled the balance of the damage was caused by the surge and not covered.

    State Farm had denied even the $2,000 on the bizarre theory that although the wind caused damage first, the surge would have also caused it later thus they therefore owed nothing!

    That\’s why they are in such trouble. But note that Judge Senter clearly ruled that surge damage was excluded from homeowners.

    The solution to such a mess? Make National Flood Program coverage an endorsement to the homeowner\’s, reinsured 100% back to the feds.

    One company is responsible for ALL the damage, they have to fight it out with their reinsurers as to their reimbursement.

    Imminently fair to the policyholders, the experts determine who owes what to the insurer later on.

  • February 2, 2007 at 9:24 am
    Live Free or Die says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    State Farm took a position that is correct in many states which is that there is an exclusion for damages caused both by a covered peril(wind) and a non-covered peril (surge).The policy states there is no coverage when both are present but the judge here held otherwise. State Farm\’s big mistake was in trying to enforce the policy language in an anti-insurer state like Miss.

  • February 2, 2007 at 9:32 am
    Jimbo says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Simple solution – Pull Out of The State. If the state is as anti-insurance as Miss., NY and others, don\’t write coverage there. My first boss always said \”never allow the aroma of the premium to overcome the stench of the risk.\” These states stink to high heaven, but if you\’re dumb enough to write business there, you deserve what you get.



Add a Comment

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

*