Posted on 11/29/2006 1:13:07 PM PST by SmithL
An unexpected ruling by a federal judge in Louisiana could result in more homeowners collecting money for flood damage caused by Hurricane Katrina — at a likely cost of more than $1 billion to the industry.
U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr. on Monday sided with New Orleans homeowners who argued that the language excluding water damage from some insurance policies was ambiguous.
Although he said the lawsuit against The Allstate Corp., The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. and other insurers could go forward, he also said the issue of "flood exclusion" was so central to the case that it could be appealed immediately by the insurers.
Spokesmen for both Allstate and St. Paul Travelers said they planned an appeal.
At issue are the clauses in almost all homeowners policies that specifically exclude flood damage from coverage. Such coverage generally must be acquired separately through the federal government's National Flood Insurance Program.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
this will be overturned.
if you want flood insurance, pay for it - like I have been doing for many years.
I feel sorry for these people. That being said, I know darn good adn well my homeowners policy does not cover flood damage. That is why I have a seperate flood insurance policy. I live in Deer Park Tx, south east of Houston.
Good call judge Duval.
A$$holic Pus once again shows their commitment to journalistic integrity.
Every stupid, treasonous, unConstitutional ruling is connected to either a Clinton or Carter judge. Yet people still insist on voting third party or staying home.
Unbelievable.
Good News!
Insurance companies have been making the rules up as they go along; hopefully they'll be held accountable.
I'm sure theres more than one case of a person losing their roof, having rain come in and destroy everything and then have this declared "flood damage" by the insurance company.
Insurance is a scam, it does not exist for the homeowner, it exists for the mortgage company.
Another Federal judge who thinks 'touch feely' instead of reading contract law.
Sure, it would be nice if the policy didn't exclude flood coverage--or if the homeowners had purchased flood coverage.
Expect the appeals court to overrule this or anarchy ensues.
Maybe, maybe not. He actually has a good point. If a pipe bursts in your house and the house floods, it's covered because it's not an act of God. This happened to me, and my damage was covered. I can see the point where the levee failure was an act of man (bad design or implementation of design) vs. an act of God. If the levee hadn't failed, there would have been no flood. The judge who ruled for the insurers was correct because there was no levee - it was storm surge whereas this was not. Interesting ruling by the judge, we'll see how it plays out.
the city is below sea level - it could not even exist without a levee. your logic basically means that so long as any act of government is taken to protect a locale, it must be 100% effective under all circumstances - and if it fails, the INSURER is at fault for it? huh?
This could cost the industry a billion dollars huh?What about the billions they've collected in premiums over the years?They need to be gone after like the tobacco industry was.
The insurer is not making up rules when it excludes flood damage. The scenario you describe is not what this case is about.
I'm not necessarily commenting on the case, but how the insurance industry is treating its customers down here in general.
Homeowner's insurance doesn't cover floods, if you don't know that you're an idiot, its well advertised. I agree.
Here's another example of how they make up their own rules:
I have "loss of use" coverage on my home. I have two rental units in my home that were unoccupied due to the mandatory evacuation of my neighborhood until Sep 30th. Does this mean that State Farm paid what I would've made in rent?
Oh no, according to them, they only cover two weeks if the property was uninhabitable due to civil order, if it were physically damaged and rendered unlivable tehn it would be covered until repaired. Where the hell was any of that stated beforehand? It wasn't.
What we have down here is the insurance companies trying to decree any conceivable water damage as flood damage.
If you're in an area that doesn't flood, theres not a lot of crap they can pull, but if you had both storm damage and flood damage watch how they try to weasle out of their share.
In an event where an act of government is taken to protect a locale, and proves less than 100% effective under all circumstances, the full weight of liability most reasonably falls upon THE PROPERTY OWNER as part and parcel of the personal risk they undertook buying/leasing/renting property in that locale.
If said property owner expects an insurance company to pay claims for losses owing to such a poor choice of real estate, they ought also expect a policy issued by that insurer to exclude claims resulting from the more obvious and significant disasters inherent to that locale, and ought expect to incur additional expense if they really want complete coverage in all circumstances.
If the insurers have been vague about the language in their policies; leading property owners to think they were covered in cases the insurers did not intend to cover, it is incumbent upon the insurers to pay up in this case, and revise the language of their policies for the future.
If the policy language is clear, I can see no grounds for holding the insurers liable for damages they do not cover.
Anything else precipitates madness.
"They need to be gone after like the tobacco industry was."
Good idea. The price of cigarettes went up over 100%. Hopefully that will happen with insurance premiums as well. /s
I lived in Deer Park for 21 years - now in League City - have had "flood" insurance for 25+ years.
Many of these so called Katrina "victims" were not even home owners - just renters - so why must we the taxpayers pay their rent for years and years.
As the local sob stories continue to go here in the Houston area, these "victims" are somehow just unable to find suitable jobs to support themselves....?!
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.