Posted on 09/11/2005 10:22:33 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
OCEAN SPRINGS, Mississippi (Reuters) - The survivors of Hurricane Katrina, whose bludgeoned houses litter the U.S. Gulf Coast, are gearing up for another epic battle, this time against their insurers.
Almost two weeks after the killer storm swept ashore, homeless residents are only now beginning to contact their insurance companies, and they do not like what they hear.
The problem is that when Katrina came ashore in Mississippi state, which lies just east of Louisiana and devastated New Orleans, it brought with it a record storm surge that appeared to do much of the damage, leveling entire communities.
Initial comments from the insurance firms indicate that they believe this constitutes flood damage, which they do not pay out for. Standard homeowner policies only talk about wind, hail and rain, while flooding is covered by an optional government program, at additional cost.
"The pitiful thing here is that insurance companies are trying to stiff us," said Eve Jaspers, a Mississippi deputy sheriff, who didn't buy flood cover because her house was built on high land and touted by the estate agents as "flood safe."
"They're telling me this was flood damage," she says surveying the gutted shell of her one-story house. "The walls fell out. The front door is in the garage, God knows where the garage door is. It was clearly a small tornado."
The Federal Emergency Management Agency estimates only 40 percent of those hit by Katrina had flood insurance, including the hundreds of thousands from sodden New Orleans.
That means many people will not have the means to rebuild their ruined homes and risk bankruptcy.
CLASS ACTION CASES
Bands of survivors are already joining forces and considering bringing class action cases against the insurers unless they offer full compensation for a disaster that the locals say was triggered by the ferocious winds.
"Repeat after me: 'Wind driven storm surge'," says a lawyer addressing one group of mainly elderly evacuees who have sought shelter in Ocean Spring's Gulf Hills Hotel, Mississippi. They shout back the phrase lustily.
"Them insurance men is as crooked as a barrel of snakes, but you can fight them," said Clyda Campbell, a 77-year-old, roofless widow.
"We're going to have to study this and do what they did with the tobacco industry," she added, referring to the multimillion-dollar lawsuits brought over smoking-related illness.
The full extent of the damage caused by Katrina is not yet clear, but one catastrophe risk modeler has estimated insured losses could be between $40 billion and $60 billion, while uninsured losses could be at least that much again.
Even those people who did take out flood insurance are girding themselves for legal action, saying flood cover alone will not be enough to pay for the damage.
The government flood program pays up to $250,000 for residences, but many beachfront properties turned to a heap of matchsticks by Katrina, were worth much more than that.
"If we pull all the elements of our policy together, then we will be able to rebuild our house as it was, but they have to accept there was both flooding and wind," says Joel Knight, a well-to-do Ocean Springs doctor.
One third of his sea-view property has simply vanished, while the remaining two thirds is unsound and will have to be torn down.
As he waits for the insurance check, he will have to continue paying the mortgage on his nonexistent house to stop the bank from repossessing the land.
But he admits he is lucky. He is well off and can afford a long legal fight, if that's what it takes.
"Those who haven't got the economic means to weather the aftermath of this storm are going to have to settle real quick because they'll be desperate. Those who can hold out for longer will get better deals," he says.
"It's not fair, but that's how it is."
If you are homeless, what kind of insurance are you carrying, global warming coverage?
"It's not fair, but that's how it is."
Look, not to be hard-hearted or anything, but people choose to live below sea level and they then think it's not fair that my tax dollars are in a limited supply for the purpose of paying for the results of their folly? And double ditto for folks who live beachside in a hurricane zone.
I don't think it's fair that I have to pay taxes that get doled out for this bs.
the people getting stiffed are in mississippi and are not below sea level this is clearly the insurance companies trying to skate and its dead wrong
If the structure is still in place and flooded I can see where most policies, except for flood insurance, would not cover the damage. Other damage caused by wind, falling trees, etc. should be covered. If the storm surge washed the structure away or severely damaged it I wouldn't think that was "rising water" but maybe the courts will decide if they already haven't.
I think they have really good cases but if they go class action, only the lawyers will win.
An insurance policy is a legally binding contract. The terms are clearly printed out, and it is YOUR responsiblity to understand whay you have bought. If you under-insure your home, you do so at YOUR risk. If you carry NO insurance on your single largest possession you have in life, you are a fool.
This website describes the difference between Flood Insurance and other Home Insurance. This is from the FAQ secion as to what is covered by Flood Insurance.
Is flood damage from wind-driven rain covered? No. When rain enters through a wind-damaged window or door, or comes through a hole in a wall or roof, the NFIP considers the resulting puddles and damage to be windstorm-related, not flood-related. Link
When I first bought flood insurance, 11 years ago, it was $200, or so. The last time I bought it, it was $700+.
I don't know about tax dollars but my premiums go up with, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, blizzards, tornados, droughts, fires etc. You name it. People pay big time for beach front insurance. Anywhere you live in this country there is some type of risk. No offense meant towards you but I tire of hearing people question why anyone would live on the coast. Should we take special precautions? Yep, but so should everyone else.
Mine went up too. 170 to 210. I'm a mile inland and above sea level though.
It's clearly not wind damage as it was caused by water (storm surge). Shyster lawyers will line their pockets and if they win the suits, all of the rest of us who have insurance will reimburse the insurance companies from now on in the form of much higher rates. In addition, look for insurance companies to cancel any remaining policies in areas near hurricane prone areas of the Gulf and Atlantic coast. That will then result in pols stepping in and using government money to underwrite the insurance companies to get them to continue offering insurance and we--the taxpayers-will pay that bill also. Be careful what you wish for here.
When Hurricane Lilly hit here, a 200 year-old red oak fell on my house. State Farm Insurance did everything in their power to delay making any payments. Don't believe all of the BS that they show in their ads on TV about how they are their to take care of you.
Insurance companies are running neck and neck with attorneys and sewer treatment plant scum for the title of lowest form of life.
Many of the homes that took water damage from the storm surge are well out normal flooding areas-some took water that Camille even didn't touch. The storm surge broke Camille's record in some areas-places pretty well inland or pretty well above sea level took storm surge damage.
From Floodsmart.gov:
Flood insurance covers devastation caused by storm surge, wave wash, tidal waves or the overflow of any body of water over normally dry land areas. Although flood insurance specifically excludes wind and hail damage, the good news is that most homeowners insurance provide such coverage.
within 2 years the federal govt will be bankrolling wind insurance like they do with flood all courtesy of Katrina.
Good or bad it matters who you talk to
Unless these folks can find a sympathetic judge (who must have been affected by the same problem - thus making him/her have a conflict of interest), or an uneducated jury, there's nowhere to go with most of these cases.
Insurance policies for many years have explicitly stated that water damage (flood) is NOT covered. The federal government has been paying for a lot of advertising time on TV with the same warning about flood insurance vs. homeowner's insurance.
What I have been shocked about is the reports of mortgage companies that DID NOT require many of the homes in the NO area to have flood insurance. This was the first time I had ever heard of such a beast. My wife spent a few years in the mortgage business and had never heard of such a thing - EVERY morgage package in most of the country requires a flood survey/report. Property in flood zones requires flood insurance to get a mortgage loan. So why the exception for the NO area???? Because the whole bloody city is under sea level??? UGH.
I do feel sympathetic for the people involved. In fact, if some of the damage can be shown to have been caused by tornaodes - then it should be covered. But what if your home received some damage from winds/tornado, but then the storm surge came and cleaned the home off it's foundation?
What a situation.
I'm suuuure they can't find a sympathetic (and politically ambitious) judge, or an uneducated jury in Mississippi or Louisiana.
But he admits he is lucky. He is well off and can afford a long legal fight, if that's what it takes.
Some need to read: http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml
Not only are the folks here in Mississippi not below sea level, but many of them got hit by storm surges in areas that Camille didn't come close to touching.
Until Katrina, Camille was viewed as an almost unimaginably destructive hurricane. If a person on the Mississippi gulf coast could see that the storm surge from Camille didn't even reach a particular area, it'd be very reasonable for him to conclude that buying flood insurance would be silly.
As far as the lawsuits are concerned, I wouldn't like being an insurance company going before a Biloxi or Pass Christian jury. The Mississippi Supreme Court is much more conservative now than it was a few years ago, but I suspect that they will stretch the law as far as it will go in favor of the Mississippi plaintiffs in this instance. The insurers best bet will be to remove to federal court, where the very conservative Fifth Circuit will hear the case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.