Insurance Co. Settles With Mississippi Couple Over Katrina Damage

October 1, 2007

  • October 1, 2007 at 2:27 am
    Dread says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A Mississippi jury found no tidal surge/flood damage in spite of the fact this house was “on the beach”? It’s hard to imagine an $800K home (A mansion in MS)being collapsed by wind BEFORE the surge hit. What am I missing here?

  • October 1, 2007 at 3:06 am
    Another Anon says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It was a jury of his peers that saw it the same way as the homeowners did. Peers equals those who lost everything & did not have adequate flood insurance and sued the carrier looking for a big payday! I would guess USAA might have been better off taking a verdict and appealing given the recent Federal Court decisions, but I could be wrong.

  • October 1, 2007 at 3:27 am
    Gill Fin says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    without understanding how it affects the contract and therefore the cost.

  • October 1, 2007 at 4:04 am
    Sam says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I have to agree with you on this one. It would appear from the article they did not have flood insurance. Maybe with their settlement they’ll have enough to rebuild, and self-insure for the next one. I can forsee a non-renewal due to unacceptable loss history waiting in the wings!

  • October 1, 2007 at 4:07 am
    Melissa says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Trial by a “jury of your peers” is a fantasy, particularly in a large urban area. I doubt there were many “peers” for this guy either with an $800K home in MS.

  • October 1, 2007 at 4:29 am
    Always Amazed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    They are paying a woman in NJ over a million for a toilet bowl injury!!! Why would this judgement surprise anyone?

  • October 1, 2007 at 4:44 am
    Sammy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This home was located on the highest land on the Mississippi Sound, approximately 30′ above sea level and was built in the 1890’s. According to FEMA surveys, the storm surge never reached the elevation that the home was built on. No storm prior to Katrina had touched it and they were not in a “flood zone”. The home next door is built on a grade level slab and survived along with the ten or so souls that stayed in it. USAA put it’s money on “experts” that led them down the flowered path rather than pay a loss. The underwriter’s attorney’s settled the entire case soon after the jury verdict on Friday.

  • October 1, 2007 at 4:53 am
    Ol Man Of The Mountain says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    A “jury of his peers”???….hmmmm, this would be a very loosely defined description of the jurors since USAA Insurance Co., is a selective writer of insurance for only current and/or retired military officers. The company’s attorneys would have to interview a lot of prospective jurors to come up with 12 military officers in this area of Miss. to truly have a “jury of his peers”.
    Going further in this thought process, a military officer is highly educated and trained to make sound and logical decisions under extreme duress, therefore, I would think (officer)-members of the jury could interpret insurance policy “insuring agreements” and “exclusions” sufficiently to come to the conclusion that a well-built $800 grand house would more likely fail under the forces of tidal water than the mere “wind-tunnel” forces of the wind only.
    Folks, just think of how many of you have been knocked down by a small surf wave rather than the hurricane winds that the Weather Channel’s on-site-guys wade out into without bowling over.
    Sounds like this jury made a “sour grapes” decision. Just my opinion.

  • October 2, 2007 at 9:01 am
    Melissa says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Instead of fighting the windstorm vs. flood battle year after year, maybe it’s time for insurance carriers to think “out of the box”. People who choose to build homes in hurricane prone areas need to pay appropriate premiums for the risk they assume. A house on the shore is like a single bowling pin hoping a ball won’t hit it. It’s less a question of “if” as “when”. Nobody else should have to subsidize these people for their decision on where to live. Let’s experience rate the territories and allow the rates to find their own levels.

    Market a “catastrohophe” policy that will cover any/all damage from a named storm regardless of whether it’s tidal surge or windstorm. Put a $25,000 deductible on it and charge a stiff premium based on “probability”, not “risk”.

  • October 2, 2007 at 10:19 am
    Mae says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately our insurance collegues are too busy jumping to conclusions to look at facts. While I agree that rates should be promulgated on experience and realistic premiums be charged by people in costal areas (we can dream can’t we?) this is a clear case of wind damage and storm surge was not involved.



Add a Comment

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

*