Posted on 12/16/2005 4:33:38 AM PST by WKB
GULFPORT - U.S. Sen. Trent Lott and wife Tricia are suing State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. over its refusal to cover the loss of their Pascagoula home to Hurricane Katrina.
The Lotts' suit, filed today in U.S. District Court, accuses the insurance company of fraud for denying coverage based on a "flood" exemption and asks that the court order the claim paid. It further asks that the insurance company be prohibited from using the flood exemption to deny coverage.
Attorney Richard "Dickie" Scruggs is representing his sister and brother-in-law in the lawsuit.
The Lotts paid insurance premiums for more than 40 years, according to the lawsuit, believing they would be covered for all losses caused by a hurricane. Katrina left a slab where their waterfront home once stood.
Homeowner's insurance policies in Mississippi and other states cover wind damage but typically include language to exclude flood damage, whether or not it is caused by wind-driven water.
The lawsuit argues that the storm surge was part of the hurricane and can't be considered flooding. It also points out that, under established law in Mississippi, when wind is considered to the "proximate" cause of damage, a claim should be paid even if other factors contributed to the loss.
Sorry, gridlock, my clipboard had a different excerpt in it when I posted. Need to make sure I hit ctrl-v and not shift-v!
So then what is the point in even having insurance and paying any premiums if insurance companies continue to weasel out of their obligations? Why does it even matter if the premiums are higher, lower or even free if insurance doesn't cover what it ways it will cover?
Nope, storm surge is only covered by flood insurance.
Actually, my point was not to drop the insurance, but to take advantage of the location of your structure with respect to the flood line. You can have the same coverage, but at a significantly reduced rate because you are a lower risk than it would seem at first glance.
On a variety of these threads previously, language from policies has been posted and they're not ambiguous about whether surge is flooding whatsoever; they're very specific that surge is flooding and NOT covered.
If the insurance companies had intended to include storm surge coverage in their normal policies for the Mississippi coast, the premiums, as others have noted, may well have been 4 or 5 times higher.
Basically what you've got here is a lot of people who built homes on the coast in the 1970-2000 period where there were an unsually low number of US landfalls and just couldn't mentally process how high storm surge could get (and storm surge maps - different from "100 year flooding" stream maps - have been widely avaliable for years.) They move into a house and the old-timer next door says he's been living there 20 years and water has never come close. So people blithely live in a fantasy world that they're not in danger.
Oh, yes, we also get hurricanes, and two years in a row hail storms rolled through my neighborhood and 3/4 of my neighbors got new siding and new roofing!
We pay premiums consistent with those risks. However, I'm the only guy in the neighborhood with an EARTHQUAKE rider on my policy. It has a $4,000 (+/-) deductible clause. That way it's affordable.
Bet you didn't know there was that much risk around here did you?
Trent is trying to redefine 'FLOOD' as used in insurance policies for many years. My guess is it will be considered a defined term with specific meaning and Trent will not collect. Trent knows about flood plains and the 'federal flood insurance' coverage. If he doesn't then all the more reason the doesn't need the Majority Leadership role back.
But no one has a right to collect a check for something they did not pay premiums on.
Oh yes there was. Anyone remotely near the Gulf coast needs flood insurance; not just people whose houses are literally on the beach. And I'd bet that virtually all the surge damage was in known and avaliable surge mapped areas. I constantly see people hiding behind the "we didn't get water in Camille" excuse (Camille was a very narrow storm with a narrow area of surge; all storms are different.)
Anyway, the ideal result of all of this is to cause people to abandon the coast and move their main dwellings inland leaving the beach for shacks and small second cottages. If people start getting paid for coverage they didn't buy (and of course what's ACTUALLY going to be the result of all this is that people who live 1,000 miles inland are going to subsidize the idiocy of coast-dwellers even more than they do already) this ideal result will not occur.
We have a zone of land like that just a few blocks away. Otherwise, everyone around here lives on a large flat area.
Hmm. I'll call my agent. Actually I was looking to change agents anyway...
Without the hurricane force winds and storm surge the New Orleans Levees would have not failed. Therefore, if Trent wins his case every flood victim in New Orleans who did not have Flood Insurance but did have Home Owners can make a claim.
No one who lives near the water on the Gulf Coast or the east coast of FLA should be able to buy insurance at any price. If you want to live in such a risky place, foot the rebuilding of your home yourself and don't expect homeowners in Montana to have their premiums go up to cover your losses when the inevitable hurricane blows/washes your house away.
Bingo. Around here the insurance adjustors are lowballing the damage estimates. People have estimates from the contractors doing the repairs and what insurance is paying out is only a small portion of what it will actually cost to repair the damage.
I keep waiting to read that an angry homeowner shoots the insurance adjustor because after paying out thousands of dollars in premiums the insurance companies are weasling out of paying the claims.
AMEN! (from 2223' above mean sea level)
Everyone I know including my self have been low balled. I understand the La Ins. Commission has been very busy with complaints.
I'd be very interested to see you document what areas 30 miles inland had homes destroyed by storm surge.
What??? The reasoning escapes me on your post.
If insurance premiusm are too high, I would be willing to bet that you would be whining about the price of insurance. You would want State regulators to "do something about it."
I expect insurance companies to honor our contractual obligations with them. I do not expect them to cover things outside of our contract. The contract specifically excludes "wind driven" surge. I would not expect a payout from my insurance company if I had ELECTED to not purchase flood insurance for my house on the beach!
You must think that insurance companies have an obligation to pay for damage that they did sell coverage for.
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.