I am sorry I cannot reveal my source, suffice it to say, it is accurate. And I do speak from experience. I worked for SF as an independent and that is the basis of my knowledge. And the fact remains, whether it is on appeal or not, SF has been hit with punitive damges as a result of Katrina and have not been successful in their defense of any unless you call the $1,200 payout on I believe the Broussards. I do have to agree that, in my opinion, their claim was the weakest of all so far presented. Fact remains that the wind did not mysteriously bypasss the houses that only a slab remains, even though SF has tried to argue that. NO, it will only get worse, not better for SF.
You seem like a typical insurance industry hating putz. Some of the comments you have made lead me to believe you are either one of the Rigsby sisters or part of the Scruggs Katrina Group. Either way, you would be a scumbag in my book.
I suspect you are not an independent adjuster, but rather a public adjuster. Your hatred of State Farm makes me think that they were unwilling to pay additional amounts on claims to cover your exorbitant fees.
It is obvious to me that you do not know how to interpret anti-concurrent causation language, or how to apply that language to a loss scenario.
No need for me to interpret the concurrent causation, Judge Senter did and said it would not fly. Also why did all of the other carriers pay the wind portion of their claims? Only Nationwide and State Farm attempted to bully their way. I have hanlded many claims with slab only and paid for the wind damage portion. State Farm chose to be arrogant as usual and it is now costing them. No, you apparently have not a clue. I am personally not fond of PA\’s, however, with carriers like State Farm, they become a necessity!!!
\”Had State Fram acted with integrity from the start, they would not be in the mess they are today!!!!\”
In your mind, the term \”integrity\” means paying money to people based on nothing more than the fact that insurance companies have money. I have State Farm homeowner\’s insurance, and I expect State Farm claims to ONLY pay out on covered losses. Why do I feel that way? Because it\’s my money, and my neighbors\’ money being paid out! I bought State Farm because I trusted they would pay claims fairly.
State Farm would not be in the mess it is in today if people in general only asked for what they were due. People need to learn about and understand insurance and the coverages available to them. This needs to start in junior high school, but the piece of crap schools in this country are more worried about the teachers\’ unions and global warming!
In handling claims, mistakes are made, and need to be corrected. People that consistently make bad decisions need to be fired. Companies that TRUELY act in bad faith should be punished.
Poor Mark. You should get into a profession you know a little about. If it were not for State Farm, approximately 50% of the caselaw against insurance companies would not exist.
No need for you to interpret the concurrent causation language???
Do you have the desire or ability to think for yourself? Just because Judge Senter is a judge, does that mean he is infallible? Will you believe anything that people in power will tell you?
While I respect Judge Senter and the task he has ahead of him, he misunderstands the application of the anti-concurrent causation clause, and has based rulings on his misunderstanding. Of course, what he knows and I do not, is how the laws of Mississippi apply to the anti-concurrent causation clause. I do know that the policy was approved by the Mississippi insurance department.
The anti-concurrent causation language does NOT mean that if flood waters \”touch\” a house otherwise covered damage is now not covered. It means that specific damage caused by wind AND flood is not covered. If the storm surge did not damage the roof, but the wind did, the roof damage is covered.
Example 1: Wind blows shingles off your roof, and the storm surge rises into your home five feet high, but does not reach the roof. The house is not washed away. Roof damage is covered and the interior flood damage is not.
Example 2: Wind blows shingles off your roof, and the storm surge destroys your entire home leaving nothing but a pile of ruble. The roof has now been damaged by wind and flood. That\’s \”concurrent causation\”, and, with a properly worded \”Anti-concurrent causation\” clause, it is not covered. None of it is covered.
Now comes the law suit. The court must review the case, apply the law, and render an opinion. Just because the opinion came from a judge or jury, doesn\’t make it right.
So did ALL of the other carriers pay for ALL of the wind damage on ALL of their claims? And just how would you be able to discern this? Have you personally reviewed every Katrina claim?
You\’re sounding more and more like a lawyer… Say what you need to be true in order for you to justify yourself and make a living at the same time.
Talk about someone trying to justify their position. It has been ajudicated and the ruling went against your position and now your opinion is right and the court\’s is wrong? Maybe we should shut down our courts and allow Mark to adjuticate everything. Unfortunately, it is clowns such as you that bring a bad name to our industry. Please provide proof there are over 1000 suits against other carriers, other than State Farm and Nationwide, where they are standing up for denying slab cases in their entireity. I have handled claims in situtions like this over the years and have ALWAYS paid the slab cases their applicable wind damage. Yes, even in Katrina in Mississippi!! Again, you need to learn more about the insurance industry if you wish to be a responsible part of it. Tell Dale hello and thanks for bringing in the local State Fram staff adjuster, who has not a clue (that would be you Mark). And why do you not address the problem State Farm has with making bad case law for the insurance industry.
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 am sorry I cannot reveal my source, suffice it to say, it is accurate. And I do speak from experience. I worked for SF as an independent and that is the basis of my knowledge. And the fact remains, whether it is on appeal or not, SF has been hit with punitive damges as a result of Katrina and have not been successful in their defense of any unless you call the $1,200 payout on I believe the Broussards. I do have to agree that, in my opinion, their claim was the weakest of all so far presented. Fact remains that the wind did not mysteriously bypasss the houses that only a slab remains, even though SF has tried to argue that. NO, it will only get worse, not better for SF.
How can they deny a home hat is left standing but in several pieces?
WHAT ABOUT LIVING EXPENSES?
THAT IS ABOUT $40,000 IN BENEFITS.
WHAT ABOUT CONTENTS TOO?
WE paid for these benefits but they are swept under the carpet even when there is just a slab.
adjusterjoe,
You seem like a typical insurance industry hating putz. Some of the comments you have made lead me to believe you are either one of the Rigsby sisters or part of the Scruggs Katrina Group. Either way, you would be a scumbag in my book.
I suspect you are not an independent adjuster, but rather a public adjuster. Your hatred of State Farm makes me think that they were unwilling to pay additional amounts on claims to cover your exorbitant fees.
It is obvious to me that you do not know how to interpret anti-concurrent causation language, or how to apply that language to a loss scenario.
No need for me to interpret the concurrent causation, Judge Senter did and said it would not fly. Also why did all of the other carriers pay the wind portion of their claims? Only Nationwide and State Farm attempted to bully their way. I have hanlded many claims with slab only and paid for the wind damage portion. State Farm chose to be arrogant as usual and it is now costing them. No, you apparently have not a clue. I am personally not fond of PA\’s, however, with carriers like State Farm, they become a necessity!!!
I would like to reply to this comment of yours…
\”Had State Fram acted with integrity from the start, they would not be in the mess they are today!!!!\”
In your mind, the term \”integrity\” means paying money to people based on nothing more than the fact that insurance companies have money. I have State Farm homeowner\’s insurance, and I expect State Farm claims to ONLY pay out on covered losses. Why do I feel that way? Because it\’s my money, and my neighbors\’ money being paid out! I bought State Farm because I trusted they would pay claims fairly.
State Farm would not be in the mess it is in today if people in general only asked for what they were due. People need to learn about and understand insurance and the coverages available to them. This needs to start in junior high school, but the piece of crap schools in this country are more worried about the teachers\’ unions and global warming!
In handling claims, mistakes are made, and need to be corrected. People that consistently make bad decisions need to be fired. Companies that TRUELY act in bad faith should be punished.
Dipsh!ts like you should be run out on a rail…
Poor Mark. You should get into a profession you know a little about. If it were not for State Farm, approximately 50% of the caselaw against insurance companies would not exist.
No need for you to interpret the concurrent causation language???
Do you have the desire or ability to think for yourself? Just because Judge Senter is a judge, does that mean he is infallible? Will you believe anything that people in power will tell you?
While I respect Judge Senter and the task he has ahead of him, he misunderstands the application of the anti-concurrent causation clause, and has based rulings on his misunderstanding. Of course, what he knows and I do not, is how the laws of Mississippi apply to the anti-concurrent causation clause. I do know that the policy was approved by the Mississippi insurance department.
The anti-concurrent causation language does NOT mean that if flood waters \”touch\” a house otherwise covered damage is now not covered. It means that specific damage caused by wind AND flood is not covered. If the storm surge did not damage the roof, but the wind did, the roof damage is covered.
Example 1: Wind blows shingles off your roof, and the storm surge rises into your home five feet high, but does not reach the roof. The house is not washed away. Roof damage is covered and the interior flood damage is not.
Example 2: Wind blows shingles off your roof, and the storm surge destroys your entire home leaving nothing but a pile of ruble. The roof has now been damaged by wind and flood. That\’s \”concurrent causation\”, and, with a properly worded \”Anti-concurrent causation\” clause, it is not covered. None of it is covered.
Now comes the law suit. The court must review the case, apply the law, and render an opinion. Just because the opinion came from a judge or jury, doesn\’t make it right.
So did ALL of the other carriers pay for ALL of the wind damage on ALL of their claims? And just how would you be able to discern this? Have you personally reviewed every Katrina claim?
You\’re sounding more and more like a lawyer… Say what you need to be true in order for you to justify yourself and make a living at the same time.
Objection!
Hearsay!
Talk about someone trying to justify their position. It has been ajudicated and the ruling went against your position and now your opinion is right and the court\’s is wrong? Maybe we should shut down our courts and allow Mark to adjuticate everything. Unfortunately, it is clowns such as you that bring a bad name to our industry. Please provide proof there are over 1000 suits against other carriers, other than State Farm and Nationwide, where they are standing up for denying slab cases in their entireity. I have handled claims in situtions like this over the years and have ALWAYS paid the slab cases their applicable wind damage. Yes, even in Katrina in Mississippi!! Again, you need to learn more about the insurance industry if you wish to be a responsible part of it. Tell Dale hello and thanks for bringing in the local State Fram staff adjuster, who has not a clue (that would be you Mark). And why do you not address the problem State Farm has with making bad case law for the insurance industry.