Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawyers on the levees
Waterbury Republican-American ^ | September 24, 2005 | Editorial

Posted on 09/24/2005 1:01:43 PM PDT by Graybeard58

Should the insurance company still have to pay to fix your car?

That may sound like an idiotic question. If you wanted collision insurance, you should have bought it before the accident. But it's essentially what Gulf Coast trial lawyers are trying to pull in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The storm wrecked tens of thousands of homes and businesses in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. However, many property owners living in flood plains didn't have flood insurance. Since the vast majority of Katrina's damage was caused by storm-surge flooding, the uninsured are on the hook for their losses because they did not take advantage of taxpayer-subsidized flood coverage.

Standard homeowners' and renters' policies redundantly and unambiguously exclude flood damage. The only flood insurance available today is from the Federal Flood Insurance Program, introduced in 1968. Private insurers don't write flood policies because the risks are so high for those who should have it that even the richest Americans would have trouble affording the premiums.

Sensing an opportunity to pull down a fortune in the judicial lottery, attorney Richard Scruggs, who became a very rich man picking the pockets of the tobacco and asbestos industries, says he is reviewing insurance policies to determine if flood exemptions constitute "unconscionable provisions."

Here's betting that Mr. Scruggs concludes they are and that he files a multibillion-dollar class-action lawsuit shortly thereafter.

In the event that ploy fails, the trial lawyers are working on Plan B. They're leaning on the states to pass laws requiring insurers to pay for all the damage inflicted by Katrina, regardless of how it occurred. Don't be shocked if governors and lawmakers are quite receptive.

Facing billions of dollars in losses to public property, facing mounting pressure to make homeowners and businesses whole, and confronting their usual budget-balancing struggles, they might see the demonizable insurance industry as the perfect slow-moving target onto which to offload all their Katrina-related losses and expenses.

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood isn't waiting for his state's lawmakers to act. He's filed suit against several insurers, demanding they pay for all Katrina-related damage.

The politicians should consider the consequences first. If companies must pay hundreds of billions for damages they never insured, many will stop doing business in those states. Others would go bankrupt, which would shift their debts to taxpayers.

The surviving companies would recover the money extorted from them by the government or the courts by raising premiums substantially for everyone else they insure, including their policy-holders in Connecticut.

The economic tsunami this would create would be ruinous. Untold thousands of employees in the industry would lose their jobs. The value of insurance companies' stocks and bonds would plummet, threatening millions of individual retirements accounts and imperiling public and private pension funds. The businesses large and small that feed off the insurance industry would be devastated.

It's bad enough the federal government subsidizes people and businesses in flood-prone areas. But to force insurers to write free flood insurance policies retroactive to Aug. 28 would mock the Constitution and wreck the economy.

All in a day's work for the trial lawyers.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial
KEYWORDS: armchair; katrina; worrywart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

1 posted on 09/24/2005 1:01:43 PM PDT by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Sick beyond belief.


2 posted on 09/24/2005 1:04:37 PM PDT by vpintheak (Liberal = The antithesis of Freedom and Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Trial lawyers are the biggest scum in this country.


3 posted on 09/24/2005 1:05:46 PM PDT by SunnyD1182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

He needs a good dragging.


4 posted on 09/24/2005 1:07:20 PM PDT by bert (K.E. ; N.P . I smell a dead rat in Baton Rouge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I relly like the idea of lawyers IN the levee.


5 posted on 09/24/2005 1:08:42 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

If there's anything worse than the "arm-chair first responders" who want to sit around and second guess the President on down the line, It could be your category of pitiful "armchair worrywarts" who piously piss and moan along with all the other crybabies.


6 posted on 09/24/2005 1:09:28 PM PDT by CBart95
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

There has been more money stolen by politicians and lawyers manipulating the law than will ever be stolen with a gun. These guys make the folks at Worldcom and Enron look good.


7 posted on 09/24/2005 1:11:12 PM PDT by Reaganghost (Democrats are living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

How about this for a counter proposal? Sue the trial lawyers for the flood damages. They've written as many flood insurance policies as the insurance industry, zero. They've got lots of money. And, unlilke the insurance industry, tearing down the trial lawyers will be good for the economy. Which is enough for a government taking according to the Supreme Court.


8 posted on 09/24/2005 1:12:16 PM PDT by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

All at the same time? Could be an opportunity here.


9 posted on 09/24/2005 1:17:17 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Unintended Consequences of Flood Exclusion Avoidance Suits
Within 3 weeks of Hurricane Katrina, private and public lawsuits have sought to make private insurers pay for flood claims despite policy exclusions and decades of availability of subsidized flood insurance from the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). (Unintended Consequences: Mississippi AG's Complaint Seeking to Void Standard Flood Exclusions)

If they are successful in their actions, the unintended consequences for society are likely to be signficant. Societal impacts may include:
*** Exacerbation of already heavy underwriting losses by private and public insurers with Gulf Coast exposures;
*** Impairment of insurance industry capital available for coverage during recovery;
*** Possible destruction of the marketability of federal flood insurance;
*** Increased insolvency of insurers with Gulf Coast property exposure concentrations;
*** Cash flow or solvency crises in the affected states' Insurance Guaranty Associations, windpools and FAIR plans;
*** Declination by primary and reinsurance companies to write coverage in the affected states on reconstruction contractors, homeowners, apartment owners and business owners;
*** "Lock-in" legislation by affected states attempting to mandate availability and forbid withdrawal;
*** Creation of new state-run insurance availability plans operated by political appointees without insurance experience.

The uncertainty surrounding these ill-considered lawsuits are likely to have some immediate impacts, as year-end renewal cycles approach. Responsible insurers may begin issuing protective non-renewal notices as soon as any "lock-in" moratoria expire, in order to preserve their contractual rights. Reinsurers and "surplus lines" carriers, being largely outside of the reach of local regulation, may take action despite attempted "lock-ins" seen in past insurance crises.

Later consequences may include:
*** Expensive antitrust actions, based on Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993), to discourage insurers from withdrawing;
*** Federal mandates of purchase of flood insurance, just as it requires contributions to Social Security;
*** Federal reform of the flood insurance scheme to include "channelling" protection for the enforceability of policy exclusions, along the lines of the Price-Anderson Act or the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA).


10 posted on 09/24/2005 1:25:56 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I relly like the idea of lawyers IN the levee.

_________________

Problem is they're so full of hot air that they have no staying power. They wouldn't be able to stop a drop of water unless there was a buck attached to it.

Now, if the New Orleans officials would have been smart, they would have just a small pile of $1 bills in the breach in front of a bunch of lawyers and the immediate pile on would have worked as a temporary band-aid to stop the levee breach...

Unfortunately, as the sharks all quickly fed on each other and nothing was left but hot air, that band-aid would have collapsed too...

ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com


11 posted on 09/24/2005 1:32:33 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Concrete overshoes.


12 posted on 09/24/2005 1:35:16 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SunnyD1182
Trial lawyers are the biggest scum in this country.

Scum is too kind a word.

Plus most politicians seem to be lawyers. No wonder things keep getting so screwed up and the tax payer screwed over...

13 posted on 09/24/2005 1:37:03 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
The end result is state owned insurance, state owned health care, state owned oil industry, state owned grocery stores, state owned housing, state owned...

Socialism/Communism at it's best.

14 posted on 09/24/2005 1:40:15 PM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird (Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

I drove my lawyer to the levee but the levee was dry.


15 posted on 09/24/2005 1:53:54 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Never a minigun handy when you need one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
How about this for a counter proposal? Sue the trial lawyers for the flood damages. They've written as many flood insurance policies as the insurance industry, zero.

I'd bet every insurance policy was written or OK'd by a lawyer.

Let the class acion lawsuits against the lawyers begin!

16 posted on 09/24/2005 2:04:03 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

New research has shown that if we took all the lawyers and layid them end to end around the equator, it would be a good start.


17 posted on 09/24/2005 2:09:46 PM PDT by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

I don't know what will happen with Mississippi lawsuits on this, but Mississippi has a history of frivilous lawsuits, outrageous medical malpractice lawsuits, jury shopping.

Does anyone else remember the Mississipi nurse who called in to Rush show describing how doctors and nurses were leaving the state in droves because of out of control lawyers?
_____________________________________________________

http://www.house.gov/pickering/Tort.htm


"...The state of Mississippi is in a crisis -- doctors and nurses are leaving, clinics are closing, prescription drug costs are rising, and our loved ones' health is at risk. The lack of reasonable lawsuit reform affects every aspect of our health care system - it makes treatment and medicine more expensive and less available, particularly in rural counties. It also clips the wings of any community hoping to expand its economic base, because industry will not come to a county that cannot provide quality health care..."

But what about Louisiana? I can already imagine lawyers there suing the Federal government because Louisiana crooks used sub-standard materials to build those New Orleans levees.


18 posted on 09/24/2005 2:13:37 PM PDT by YaYa123 (@ God Bless President Bush As the MSM and Democrats Seek To Destroy Him.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58

Mortgage companies REQUIRE flood insurance, paid for by the homeowner, if the property is in a flood plain. Unless you own your property outright, you're legally obligated to have the insurance. EVERYBODY on the gulf coast that owns property knows this!


19 posted on 09/24/2005 2:19:22 PM PDT by Antoninus II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus II
Mortgage companies REQUIRE flood insurance

I don't live in a flood prone area but where I do live, mortgage companies damn sure require that I have insurance to cover tornados. No insurance equals no mortgage loan.

20 posted on 09/24/2005 2:23:38 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Sgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson