I was an insurance adjusters working in Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina. I have worked on hurricanes for the past 12 years. It amazes me that no one has ever asked my opinion of what actually happened in Mississippi after the hurricane. I was there climbing through the debris, smelling the decaying bodies and animals. There are some agents who should be sued over their own negligence in issuing flood policies but they have contacts in Congress and Senate and their life-long goal of being a politician will help alleviate any future E&O claims. The adjusters who were there on the ground after the hurricane know what really happened!!!! No one wants our input or insight into the dealings or mis-dealings that were going on throughout Mississippi!!!!
As an adjuster, any documentation relating to a specific claim is CONFIDENTIAL information only to be viewed by the adjuster and insurance carrier… in this case State Farm. I don\’t agree with SF in their handling of the wind claims in Alabama and that should be left up to the courts. But for these sisters to divulge CONFIDENTIAL information is illegal!!! Scruggs should be held accountable for obtaining their services and should have to pay any penalties on their behalf!!
I thought the reason SF denied all those claims is due to the concurrent causation language in the policy. If this is the case, then they were justified in denying the claims. As to the fairness of the language…..It seems that b/c so many (too many) citizens were financially devastated by the catastophe, our legal system remedies the social problem by interpreting contract language in a way that was never intended by the drafters of the contracts. So, the claims get paid and life goes on. The problem w/this is that it creates a hostile environment in which to do business and the insurers make a mass exodus out of the state. This is/was happening in FL. Does anyone have a copy of the actual homeowners contract that SF used? I\’d love to take a look at it.
So, if working for a company, I see a document that indicates someone hired a person to do a killing, if I send that to the authorities after the murder, I am guilty? What about the victum? What about their families? Isn\’t it the same here? Didn\’t SF kill the claims illegally?
I am from the old ways…evidence is evidence and should not be judged on the method used to obtain it. So SF should be judged on the method rather then the actual evidence??? I have been involved with SF and their claim system many times…one of the worst I have ever seen. The try anything to get out of a claim. I saw our neighbors who had SF have to fight for their money while all the rest in the neighborhood received their \”Hail Damage\” settlement.
If these women had turned over documents to the state insurance dept or the attorney general\’s office, I would be very sympathetic, but selling them to a lawyer in return for $150,000 apiece makes them criminals in my mind.
State Farm should absolutely pay legitimate claims, but these women just saw a chance to cash in, and took it.
An employee who has inside knowledge of illegal activities occurring within his or her organization and reports these to the public.
Investopedia Commentary
Although whistle blowers are protected under federal law from employer retaliation, there have been cases where punishment for whistle blowing has occurred.\”
From dictionary.com
I am not convinced either way on this one yet. It seems fair & unfair at the same time.
I have seen a couple of the denial letters and the policy provision concening concurrent casusation is not included in the denial language. Only the flood language is cited.
Adjuster Joe, thanks for your response. Don\’t you think the court cases could have been avoided if SF had used the concurrent causation clause language as the basis for denial? It\’s pretty ironclad.
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.
I was an insurance adjusters working in Mississippi during Hurricane Katrina. I have worked on hurricanes for the past 12 years. It amazes me that no one has ever asked my opinion of what actually happened in Mississippi after the hurricane. I was there climbing through the debris, smelling the decaying bodies and animals. There are some agents who should be sued over their own negligence in issuing flood policies but they have contacts in Congress and Senate and their life-long goal of being a politician will help alleviate any future E&O claims. The adjusters who were there on the ground after the hurricane know what really happened!!!! No one wants our input or insight into the dealings or mis-dealings that were going on throughout Mississippi!!!!
As an adjuster, any documentation relating to a specific claim is CONFIDENTIAL information only to be viewed by the adjuster and insurance carrier… in this case State Farm. I don\’t agree with SF in their handling of the wind claims in Alabama and that should be left up to the courts. But for these sisters to divulge CONFIDENTIAL information is illegal!!! Scruggs should be held accountable for obtaining their services and should have to pay any penalties on their behalf!!
Please tell me / us exactly what you saw during your time adjusting the claims. I know much of it is confidential, but what can you share, thank you
I thought the reason SF denied all those claims is due to the concurrent causation language in the policy. If this is the case, then they were justified in denying the claims. As to the fairness of the language…..It seems that b/c so many (too many) citizens were financially devastated by the catastophe, our legal system remedies the social problem by interpreting contract language in a way that was never intended by the drafters of the contracts. So, the claims get paid and life goes on. The problem w/this is that it creates a hostile environment in which to do business and the insurers make a mass exodus out of the state. This is/was happening in FL. Does anyone have a copy of the actual homeowners contract that SF used? I\’d love to take a look at it.
So, if working for a company, I see a document that indicates someone hired a person to do a killing, if I send that to the authorities after the murder, I am guilty? What about the victum? What about their families? Isn\’t it the same here? Didn\’t SF kill the claims illegally?
I am from the old ways…evidence is evidence and should not be judged on the method used to obtain it. So SF should be judged on the method rather then the actual evidence??? I have been involved with SF and their claim system many times…one of the worst I have ever seen. The try anything to get out of a claim. I saw our neighbors who had SF have to fight for their money while all the rest in the neighborhood received their \”Hail Damage\” settlement.
If these women had turned over documents to the state insurance dept or the attorney general\’s office, I would be very sympathetic, but selling them to a lawyer in return for $150,000 apiece makes them criminals in my mind.
State Farm should absolutely pay legitimate claims, but these women just saw a chance to cash in, and took it.
\”Whistle Blower
An employee who has inside knowledge of illegal activities occurring within his or her organization and reports these to the public.
Investopedia Commentary
Although whistle blowers are protected under federal law from employer retaliation, there have been cases where punishment for whistle blowing has occurred.\”
From dictionary.com
I am not convinced either way on this one yet. It seems fair & unfair at the same time.
Lotus:
I have seen a couple of the denial letters and the policy provision concening concurrent casusation is not included in the denial language. Only the flood language is cited.
Adjuster Joe, thanks for your response. Don\’t you think the court cases could have been avoided if SF had used the concurrent causation clause language as the basis for denial? It\’s pretty ironclad.