Posted on 09/21/2005 10:01:23 AM PDT by george76
Insurer's operating chief responds to Mississippi suit...
Allstate Corp. won't pay flooding claims stemming from Hurricane Katrina, Chief Operating Officer Tom Wilson said on Tuesday, in a direct challenge to a lawsuit filed last week by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
Controversy has emerged surrounding the devastating flooding that followed the storm. Standard homeowners' insurance policies typically exclude flooding, partly because a national, government-run program covers those risks. However, many homeowners hit by Katrina may not have bought this extra coverage.
Mississippi's Hood sued Allstate and four other leading insurers in the state on Sept. 16, arguing that their flood exclusions should be voided and that they should pay flood claims.
"Exhibit one for us will be just the national flood-insurance programs -- advertising programs, which they put on very aggressively every year," he said. "People know this is a separate coverage, so we're not having many issues with our customers."
Allstate's Wilson did concede that there will be "issues" when assessing what damage was caused by wind and what was the result of flooding.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Whoa. Flashback. Now I know how Jason Bourne felt. Yes. Did you use to post there also?
Democrats?.. (Eddie Murphy laugh)...
Well said!!
And all the billions of dollars of unpaid-for by premiums liability. I think I'd pass if I was the CEO of an Allstate competitor. Not to mention the precedent this would set. Darn - they want to force the company to pay for something it didn't say it would pay for. Hell, why not stop there ? Sue the central bank, or someone else completely unrelated...
Will they change their name to Allstate Excluding Mississippi?
There was a big huff about Allstate after the San Diego brush fires. Allstate actually called out the Counties and State about their inadequate fire response to the areas, and said they would not cover another catastrophe like that and that the San Diego area needed to step up with their fire departments, radio coverage, etc.
A lot in California ripped on Allstate, but after reading the post incident reports on the failure of the radio systems, and staffing, and all the other problems associated with those firestorms the insurance company's response made sense. If you permit building of homes in the outskirts without upgrading the public safety infrastructure, you are planning on failure.
Why should they pay a billion dollars for claims they don't owe?
Actually, what they are doing is smart in more ways than one. Any smart homeowner in a flood prone area would get flood insurance. If Allstate refuses to pay, then they are encouraging people to get flood insurance, and they can make money then by selling it.
"You're in good handouts with LA Sate."
Thanks for saying what I have felt all along. Charley, Frances, Jeanne and Ivan swept through Florida last year. No one was paid flood coverage unless they had purchased it separately. We know the rules here. Why should Katrina victims be treated any differently. When my roof was blown off, I was slightly under insured at the time because of appreciation of my home. My own fault. The federal government didn't volunteer to give me an extra $5,000.00 for the roof nor did I ask them to. Flood insurance is NOT that much money either!
"You're in good handouts with LA State."
That's State Farm. And they are a much better insurer than Allstate. I think MS is clearly wrong to bring this lawsuit, but I'm no lover of Allstate. We have it and think that they are the worst insurer out there. Long story. So it pains me to say, without reading this more carefully, that they are probably in the right here.
That is why you saw buildings on fire...wink wink - that is the line here in California, if an earthquake hits and knocks down your house, start a barbque
Not to brag but I've actually talked to Rush on-air 10 times.
My disappointment with W's spending policies is continuing with this latest episode. They (Reps) refuse to give up any pork but keep expanding the role of the Gov't as an insurer against all perils, despite the availability of coverage in the insurance markets - Coverage that owners could not, or would not, avail themselves of. Noe they look to the Gov't to remedy the results of their bad decision.
"Yes, you are the devil, and you don't care about black people, and you contributed to global warming to strengthen the hurricane and you bombed a hole in the levee to flood out black people - oh, this is Mississippi, not Louisiana? - never mind...."
" I would be happy to have the Federal Government to get out of the flood insurance business, and leave it to the free market."
So would many taxpayers. Federal flood insurance is basically an entitlement program.
The free market won't insure buildings on flood plain, because eventually the area will be inundated, the buildings ruined, and the companies will lose big. Enter the feds with our money.
If this "lawsuit" were to prevail, there is not one contract in this country that would be worth the paper it is written on, up to and including divorces and child custody.
That suggestion of off the top of my head. Seems to me there is an opportunity there for competitors to gain on Allstate. I know that in Texas Allstate does not have a good reputation and many are could easily be persuaded to switch insurers.
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.