I am somewhat confused by this story. “State Farm claimed that Senter erred when he ruled that the company had to prove that the Broussard’s home didn’t sustain any wind damage or that it had to segregate wind and water damage to the residence.”
What was State Farm’s position. Was it that “the Broussard’s home didn’t sustain any wind damage…”? (“State Farm’s experts concluded that Katrina’s storm surge was responsible for most, if not all, of the damage to the Broussard’s home.”) Sounds like State Farm has left the door open for some windstorm damage. Was this whole tempest about the extent of covered damage? This was one of the infamous ‘slab’ cases. Really hard to segregate the covered v non-covered damage. It might be necessary to go to trial to resolve the differences.
I have always been taught that it is the insured’s obligation to prove a claim. They must prove the extent of the covered (windstorm) damage. On the other hand, IF the insurer is relying on an exclusion (storm surge) the burden of proof shifts to them.
Somehow, somebody has to segregate the damages. It usually works best when this is a joint endeavor between the insured and the insurer (enables a meeting of the minds, etc.).
“The couple’s attorneys say State Farm was contractually obligated to pay for ALL the damage to the home because the company “could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no damage at all would have occurred ‘in the absence of’ storm surge.”
I believe that the earlier statement from “State Farm’s experts concluded that Katrina’s storm surge was responsible for most, if not all, of the damage to the Broussard’s home” precludes State Farm from denying ALL wind damage.
State Farm’s ‘contractual’ obligation was to pay for COVERED damage and deny NON-COVERED damage. The Walker/Denton position is merely posturing or a sad misunderstanding of contract law.
“For Mississippians and for the future of the state’s insurance market, it’s important court rulings are consistent with evidence presented at trial and there’s accurate interpretation of both the insurance policy and Mississippi law,” State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said.
This cannot be overstated, for multiple reasons including customer confidence.
The Broussards’ lawyers, William Walker and Jack Denton, argue State Farm set up a scheme to use its “wind-water protocol” to deny “slab” claims, where nothing but a home’s foundation is left standing.
Do I think State Farm set up a scheme? No, that’s ridiculous. Does the policy work in a way so that if there is ANY wind/water damage then the policy doesnt pay? Yes, I believe it does. I also believe that contract was acknowledged and approved by a state insurance commissioner. Furthermore, the premiums established and collected by policyholders reflect that level of coverage.
I understand people not thinking they need flood insurance, then getting hit with a catastrophe they didnt expect and
suffering. Whether its property insurance or any other contract law, a contract is a contract.
Why do you believe that “if there is ANY wind/water damage, then the policy doesn’t pay”?
Please don’t tell me that is what the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause says. This is NOT a reflection on you, but when a lie is told often enough, it starts to be mistaken for the truth. The ACC clause does NOT do what some plaintiff’s lawyers say it does!!
I believe State Farm’s position had been that because of the concurrent cause clause there was no cover for the wind because there was not coverage for the water damage.
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 somewhat confused by this story. “State Farm claimed that Senter erred when he ruled that the company had to prove that the Broussard’s home didn’t sustain any wind damage or that it had to segregate wind and water damage to the residence.”
What was State Farm’s position. Was it that “the Broussard’s home didn’t sustain any wind damage…”? (“State Farm’s experts concluded that Katrina’s storm surge was responsible for most, if not all, of the damage to the Broussard’s home.”) Sounds like State Farm has left the door open for some windstorm damage. Was this whole tempest about the extent of covered damage? This was one of the infamous ‘slab’ cases. Really hard to segregate the covered v non-covered damage. It might be necessary to go to trial to resolve the differences.
I have always been taught that it is the insured’s obligation to prove a claim. They must prove the extent of the covered (windstorm) damage. On the other hand, IF the insurer is relying on an exclusion (storm surge) the burden of proof shifts to them.
Somehow, somebody has to segregate the damages. It usually works best when this is a joint endeavor between the insured and the insurer (enables a meeting of the minds, etc.).
“The couple’s attorneys say State Farm was contractually obligated to pay for ALL the damage to the home because the company “could not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no damage at all would have occurred ‘in the absence of’ storm surge.”
I believe that the earlier statement from “State Farm’s experts concluded that Katrina’s storm surge was responsible for most, if not all, of the damage to the Broussard’s home” precludes State Farm from denying ALL wind damage.
State Farm’s ‘contractual’ obligation was to pay for COVERED damage and deny NON-COVERED damage. The Walker/Denton position is merely posturing or a sad misunderstanding of contract law.
“For Mississippians and for the future of the state’s insurance market, it’s important court rulings are consistent with evidence presented at trial and there’s accurate interpretation of both the insurance policy and Mississippi law,” State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said.
This cannot be overstated, for multiple reasons including customer confidence.
The Broussards’ lawyers, William Walker and Jack Denton, argue State Farm set up a scheme to use its “wind-water protocol” to deny “slab” claims, where nothing but a home’s foundation is left standing.
Do I think State Farm set up a scheme? No, that’s ridiculous. Does the policy work in a way so that if there is ANY wind/water damage then the policy doesnt pay? Yes, I believe it does. I also believe that contract was acknowledged and approved by a state insurance commissioner. Furthermore, the premiums established and collected by policyholders reflect that level of coverage.
I understand people not thinking they need flood insurance, then getting hit with a catastrophe they didnt expect and
suffering. Whether its property insurance or any other contract law, a contract is a contract.
Why do you believe that “if there is ANY wind/water damage, then the policy doesn’t pay”?
Please don’t tell me that is what the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause says. This is NOT a reflection on you, but when a lie is told often enough, it starts to be mistaken for the truth. The ACC clause does NOT do what some plaintiff’s lawyers say it does!!
I believe State Farm’s position had been that because of the concurrent cause clause there was no cover for the wind because there was not coverage for the water damage.