I’ve read som many brilliant ruling today I feel it couldn’t be a coincidence. Nice to see the Courts making another common sense verdict. Where are the haters?
Mary. Why do you inject “haters” for those who may have differing opinions. What are you…the pericle of tobarca, the angel of the bottomless pit? Please note, there was “uncertainty” over the terms of the policy…whether there was a concurrent event…which can first, the wind or the water…or, wind then associated with the water damage. Many would argue, that if wind from a powerful storm is covered but if it is followed by water…this concurrence would trigger the dreadful exclusion! That is NOT AMBIGUOUS, but it may be stacking the %’ages in favor of the drafter. Even State Farm was willing to concede uncertainty by agreeing to a HIGH-LOW AGREEMENT regardless of the Fed’s decision. Right or Wrong…the Feds are pro business. That is good. But some decisions do not pass the smell test. Most everyone I know favors justice and because I am elder in this business, I’ve seen judges that come from insurance defense firms usually side with the hand that has fed them. This is not a hateful observation. Get over it.
Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, an attorney for the Tuepkers, said the ruling doesn’t absolve State Farm of paying for wind damage when it can be distinguished from flood damage.
which is why State Farm continues to attempt to settle claims. They now have clear guidance from the 5th Circuit regarding flood, anti-concurrent causation and wind.
Maybe at the federal level. We still have the state courts to mess things up.
You’ll note that it’s Judge Senter who is being overturned. He’s been more of a wildcard during all of the proceedings.
Ms Mary B…From my life’s experiences I’ve learned to control myself and to regard “hate” as a complete waste of time. “Hate” is the realm for those who are gullible. You demonstrate “hate”. It is my civil and professional duty to disagree where, in this case, the 5th Circuit has strained to justify a “unilateral” contracts as they apply to “exclusionary concurrent-causes”. The 5th Circuit judges must have been bored to death in their law school Contracts class. Especially on matters dealing with drafting them and “public policy” considerations. Like I mentioned before…they’ve strong affiliations with Insurance Companies. No scales of justice @ the 5th Cir. for decades. I make my living selling insurance policies (great social and economic documents!) to the public … not Bill of Goods. Leadership among various insurance companies and judges is in lock-step with what we’ve seen lately in positions of high trust. Oh, by the way, I do go to Church and do volunteer work for the elderly.
You should overlook MaryB and forgive her lack of knowledge. She is a new clerical worker (with access to a computer) in a life and health office and has absolutely no knowledge of the P & C business.
As you say, the public policy inferences are very clear and the stacking of the policy against the insured is obvious.
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’ve read som many brilliant ruling today I feel it couldn’t be a coincidence. Nice to see the Courts making another common sense verdict. Where are the haters?
Mary, you know adjusterjoe is out there lurking. He will now post his comments since another jury did rule against State Farm in another case.
Mary. Why do you inject “haters” for those who may have differing opinions. What are you…the pericle of tobarca, the angel of the bottomless pit? Please note, there was “uncertainty” over the terms of the policy…whether there was a concurrent event…which can first, the wind or the water…or, wind then associated with the water damage. Many would argue, that if wind from a powerful storm is covered but if it is followed by water…this concurrence would trigger the dreadful exclusion! That is NOT AMBIGUOUS, but it may be stacking the %’ages in favor of the drafter. Even State Farm was willing to concede uncertainty by agreeing to a HIGH-LOW AGREEMENT regardless of the Fed’s decision. Right or Wrong…the Feds are pro business. That is good. But some decisions do not pass the smell test. Most everyone I know favors justice and because I am elder in this business, I’ve seen judges that come from insurance defense firms usually side with the hand that has fed them. This is not a hateful observation. Get over it.
Richard “Dickie” Scruggs, an attorney for the Tuepkers, said the ruling doesn’t absolve State Farm of paying for wind damage when it can be distinguished from flood damage.
which is why State Farm continues to attempt to settle claims. They now have clear guidance from the 5th Circuit regarding flood, anti-concurrent causation and wind.
Have logic and common sense managed to weasel their way into our judicial system?
Maybe at the federal level. We still have the state courts to mess things up.
You’ll note that it’s Judge Senter who is being overturned. He’s been more of a wildcard during all of the proceedings.
Um, better yet, get over yourself. Nice post and a thoughtful argument, too bad you had to ruin it with your hate.
Ms Mary B…From my life’s experiences I’ve learned to control myself and to regard “hate” as a complete waste of time. “Hate” is the realm for those who are gullible. You demonstrate “hate”. It is my civil and professional duty to disagree where, in this case, the 5th Circuit has strained to justify a “unilateral” contracts as they apply to “exclusionary concurrent-causes”. The 5th Circuit judges must have been bored to death in their law school Contracts class. Especially on matters dealing with drafting them and “public policy” considerations. Like I mentioned before…they’ve strong affiliations with Insurance Companies. No scales of justice @ the 5th Cir. for decades. I make my living selling insurance policies (great social and economic documents!) to the public … not Bill of Goods. Leadership among various insurance companies and judges is in lock-step with what we’ve seen lately in positions of high trust. Oh, by the way, I do go to Church and do volunteer work for the elderly.
You should overlook MaryB and forgive her lack of knowledge. She is a new clerical worker (with access to a computer) in a life and health office and has absolutely no knowledge of the P & C business.
As you say, the public policy inferences are very clear and the stacking of the policy against the insured is obvious.