I used to be a lawyer, and did a lot of insurance coverage work, although almost always on the defense (insurance company) side.

The lawsuit referred to in the first post isn't really a moral issue, IMO. The parties to a contract have every right to fight for every bit of advantage they can get under the terms of the contract. Corporations do this all the time.

This particular contract was written by the insurance company and its lawyers. They had every opportunity to make it crystal-clear that a wind-driven storm surge is excluded. If they failed to do so, they're exposed to loss.

The legal context is that if a loss is caused by two forces simultaneously, one covered and one excluded, then the loss is covered i.e. insured. So if a house is destroyed by a combination of wind (arguably covered) and of flood (arguably excluded), there's a decent argument that the loss is covered. Now, its been a long time since I've done insurance law (or any law) so that might not be completely right, but it is roughly right. Given that legal context, and the well-known reality of what happens in a hurricane zone, the insurance company and its lawyers had every reason to take great care in drafting the contract.

Bottom-line, I'm not inclined to condemn the plaintiffs here as scumbags. They think they've got a decent legal argument, and they have the right to test it in court.

The bigger picture, to me, is with the way the courts resolve these disputes. I have a lot of problems with the cost and fairness of the litigation process. But a ruined homeowner in LA or MI can't do anything about that.

Legion,

Isn't State Farm's H.Q. in Bloomington? Do you work for S.F.?

Jon, I think it's just another example of the mindset of politicians, republican and democratic alike.

I live in a hurricane prone area. I luckily am not in an area threatened by flooding and still my house is 10' off the ground. (Bonus garage space :) I am insured by SF. I do believe I should feel guilty for all of the trees that were killed to print the papers informing me that I will not be covered by any water damage. Not only is it in the policy it is covered over and over again by the company and the agent. I would Be willing to bet these same mailings were sent to all of those affected by this water damage and will likely be used in court.

Rally Jon stated: Flood insurance may be obvious--even to an idiot. But what if the insured literally can't understand the document? (we are talking about MS, LA and AL here). Is the assumption that all southerners are idiots? I guess some people don't get out much.

Really? Interesting. I wonder if that's state by state or nationally.

There are two insurers based here in Bloomington: State Farm and Country Companies. There is also a Illinois State University and a Mitsubishi factory (where they make the Eclipse). There are also numerous sattellite offices of major tech companies here in town to service the needs of the big four employers listed above.

I'm in IT, but because of the litigious nature of the industry I work in, I prefer not make it widely known who I work for. That being said, the opinions stated here on Pelican (and everywhere I state opinions--do I have specifically create an inclusive list of each place?) are my opinions, and not those of my employer. I do not represent, in any way, shape, or form the opinions of my employer and am not authorized to speak on its behalf.

The argument here is not two forces simultaneously - that would be a one-two punch of flood and wind. To quote the article:

"The issue is whether a wind-driven storm surge is the same as flooding.
The companies contend they shouldn't have to pay for water damage for those who did not have flood policies."

Somehow in this bizzaro world water driven inland by a hurricane i.e. "wind" - is not a "flood". And all you need is a jury full of knuckeheads looking for free money...

Wow, that was really witty. I would hate to be cross examined by the likes of you!!

Your position is very interesting considering that you make a living dealing with technicalities and details. Wonder how things would go with the judge if you filed a lawsoot??

Which is why noble, justice-seeking, society-benefiting trial lawyers jurisdiction shop for the deep south.

And Madison County, IL, up until a few months ago.

Did everyone miss that Trent Lott's brother in law is Dickie Scruggs? Mississippi has a long tradition crooked politicians--no matter the party (kinda like IL). It seems to me that Trent is trying to bring credibility to his bro-in-law's suit by joining it.

My prediction: Scruggs will win this one. It will be appealed, and as long as the case stays in Mississippi, it will be upheld. Scruggs know what court to try this in, and also knows the appeals path well. This will only be overturned if it makes it to federal court. Second prediction: after losing, all national insurers will pull out of Mississippi.

If the state allows them to.

Also, isn't ALL flood insurance underwritten by the US goverment?

I'll also guess SF will be fighting on behalf of the many reinsurers that actually hold these policys. There's probably less exposure to SF than most people think.

Perhaps, in the definitions for the policy, there will need to be a very legalese written definition on what "flood" and "flooding" means (if there isn't already one).

A hurricane is a wind phenomenon.

Those of you who like to think this suit is frivolous and that insurance companies and other corporations should not be hampered in their quest for earnings, I've got a question.

If your home was insured against wind damage but not against collision with a vehicle......and let's say there was a tornado. The tornado picked up your motorhome and tossed it into your house, destroying both. Would you consider suing if your insurance company denied the claim? The motorhome crash would have been incidental to the real cause of the damage, the tornado. Just like flooding is incidental to a hurricane.

Reinsurance is a little beyond my limited knowledge, but I suspect the reinsurers have zero risk here. Those contracts (like the actual policies) are very clear. There might even be a clause protecting them from retroactive reinterpretation of the law.

So Supe, what you are essentially saying is that insurance should cover everything, because you think it should? Actual policy language be damned!

I hope the next time you are hired to do something, someone creatively reinterprets your contract to include much, much more.

But the storm surge is not caused by the "wind." It is caused by the low pressure of the storm, so water damage from the flooding caused by the storm surge is not wind damage.

The storm surge (and damage from it) can be made worse by the wind, but that is true about wind in any flooding situation. If flooding was not covered by the insurance policy, the fact that the flooding was made worse by the wind is pretty meaningless.

To me, flooding=flooding. I don't care if the water came in the form of rain, or a river overflowing its banks or a storm surge. If your house is under water, that is flooding, not wind damage.

Not a proper analogy since your description does not meet the definition of "collision." The wind blowing a vehicle into a building is not the same (from a legal standpoint) as a vehicle collision with a building.

I thought we established that the "actual policy language" was written by experts to protect their interests, that altering the "actual policy language" was pretty much impossible and that often the "actual policy language" was beyond the understanding of or misled the insured?

I would think that a good lawyer would argue that the above combination of factors would go against the insurance companies. I'm no lawyer, but isn't there quite a bit of weight given to what a reasonable person (i.e. a poor, uneducated Alabama jury member) would expect, given the wording of the contract?

legion, if the plaintiffs can make a case that the wording was deceptive or confusing, the insurance companies should be worried.

Didn't someone post above that it is clearly stated in their homeowner's insurance policy that flood damage is NOT covered? What is so cryptic about that? Do you want a big neon sign or something??

Have you ever read a legal document?

I have, yes. Have most of the people on specially selected "plaintiff's juries"? My point isn't what's right or wrong--I'm just handicapping. :)

And my predictions stand.

I'm going to try to stay off of this thread for awhile.

This kind of lawsuit abuse gets me steamed like nothing else. It's my opinion that this is the single most important domestic issue currently facing our country, and the one that gets the little attention and is the least understood.

Bad lawsuits (as I tried to make a point before) are affecting all of our lives in very negative ways. They make our jobs unneccesarily harder, and make everything more expensive. They help a few people get rich, and a lot of lawyers get very rich.

The thing that really gets me is that we have essentially given a select group of people, lawyers, the right to levy taxes on the people of this country without passing laws, without any representation. We really should start calling them dukes or counts.

And saddest of all, because of these people's political connections and the fact that they claim they are fighting for "consumer rights" (or some other nonsense like that), the chances of the situation being corrected are very slim.

In summary, I don't hate very many things, but I hate people that squeeze the rest of us for money while claiming all the while they are helping us.

What's the difference between a prostitute and a trial lawyer? A prostitute earns an honest living.

What do you call it when a trial lawyer commits suicide? A good start.

How can you tell that you are getting screwed by a trial lawyer? He is talking to you.

How many trial lawyers does it take to change a light bulb? None. The glass can break and become sharp. Someone might accidentally put their finger into a live electrical socket. No one is willing to change them in this country any more.

How can you spot a trial lawyer in a crowd? He's the guy stealing your wallet, thanking you for your business, and telling you that you are the victim of a defective wallet.

Three trial lawyers walk into a bar...and per the terms of the settlement I can't discuss the rest.

Nope. Insurance almost never covers everything, and what I think has no bearing on what it covers. thanks for asking.

I do however think that insurance should cover what the policy says it covers. Kinda like the title to this thread. What part of a contract do you not understand?

I have not read the policy, so I don't know whether it specifically says "hurricane" or whether it says "wind." What I do know is that the property suffered damage caused by a hurricane.

Just about any lawsuit or contract dispute is going to come down to semantics. What did the polich mean by this term or that term. And as someone said above (and is a widely applied principle of contract law), the writer of the contract (in this case the insurance company) had primary responsibility to write the policy in a way that effectively clarifies what is covered and what is not. Apparently, they did not do that in this case. If that clarifying passage were in the policy, filing suit would indeed be frivolous.

Wow, your the first on my ignore list. Moron.

If you have a mortgage and you live in a flood prone area you are required to carry flood insurance.

You can go here and type in your address, click on view map and see if your in a flood zone.

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&lang Id=-1


Also, there are companies that are hired by the banks to determine if a house needs flood insurance.

Companies like this one are used to determine if the insurance if you have a loan they will force you to get insurance.

http://www.credittechnologies.com/flood_certifications.asp

How all these people in NE are without insurance is beyond me. I can see rentors loosing their posessions but I cannot see how a homeowner could not have insurance.

I checked the maps for NE proper and it is all in a Flood zone and requires insurance.

Whoa. I just had an epiphany. We're discussing the difficult question of who has the burden for policy clarity, what does wind damage entail and not entail and other interesting questions......and a number of other folks are having a completely different conversation.

It's about hate. Hate seems to be overflowing. Hatred of one another. Hatred of any and all branches of gubmint, including and especially the courts.

So Supe- those that paid hard earned money for "flood coverge" are just chumps?

Do they get a rebate in this Wonderland you live in?:confused:

BTW- I do not carry Flood insurance. I am not in a Flood zone nor am I in any danger of flooding, ever. It would take a 40' storm surge..... hmmm.. I think I might insure for flood. Honestly after the last 2 years if I have not flooded I will not. We sit pretty high where I live. My house is 35 feet above sea level.

I am however insured against named storms.

Probably not. The only real winner, the only folks who are going to get a longstanding benefit from this law suit.....is the insurance industry. It may be an expensive lesson, but those are the most memorable kind.

Supe I don't hate the courts. I do have a serious allergic reaction to the lawyers who make their living by being leeches on the collective arse of society...

Understood. Know any good attorney jokes? Yeah, I thought so.

Actually I do know a few...here's one:

A man went to a brain store to get some brain to complete a study. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of professional brain offerred at this particular brain store. He begins to question the butcher about the cost of these brains.

"How much does it cost for engineer brain?"

"Three dollars an ounce."

"How much does it cost for programmer brain?"

"Four dollars an ounce."

"How much for lawyer brain?"

"$1,000 an ounce."

"Why is lawyer brain so much more?"

"Do you know how many lawyers we had to kill to get one ounce of brain?"


And what is up with the "Yeah I thought so"?? Is that like in the schoolyard where you ask someone if they have anything else to say and then you say "Yeah I thought so" before they answer??

Improvements in Hell

An engineer died and ended up in Hell. Soon, he became dissatisfied with the level of comfort in Hell and began designing and building improvements. After a while, they had flush toilets, air conditioning, and escalators. The engineer was a pretty popular guy.

One day God called to Satan and said with a sneer: "So, how's it going down there in Hell?"

Satan replied: "Hey, things are great. We've got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there's no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next."

God exclaimed: "What? You've got an engineer? That's a mistake -- he should never have gotten down there in the first place. Send him back up here."

"No way," replied Satan. "I like having an engineer on the staff, and I'm keeping him."

God threatened: "Send him back up here now or I'll sue!"

Satan laughed and answered: "Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?"

Naw, Rick. I knew you'd have an attorney joke. Everyone does.

Here's a few funny excerpts from actual trial records:

Attorney: What is the meaning of sperm being present?
Witness: It indicates intercourse.
Attorney: Male sperm?
Witness: That is the only kind I know.

--

Attorney: She had three children, right?
Witness: Yes.
Attorney: How many were boys?
Witness: None.
Attorney: Were there girls?

--

Attorney: Please state the nature of your relationship to the minor child?
Witness: I'm his mother.
Attorney: And you have been so all of his life?

--

Attorney: Mrs. Jones, do you believe you are emotionally stable?
Witness: I used to be.
Attorney: How many times have you committed suicide?

--

Attorney: Was it you or your brother that was killed in the war?

--

Attorney: What happened then?
Witness: He told me, he says, "I have to kill you because you can identify me."
Attorney: Did he kill you?

--

Attorney: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
Witness: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

--

Attorney: When was the last time you saw the deceased?
Witness: At his funeral.
Attorney: Did he make any comments to you at that time?

--

Attorney: Your Honor, he is . . . on the witness list, he has been called. We know where he is. I'm intending to call him. I don't know why I'm being circumcised.
Judge: Because you are Jewish, but beyond that—circumscribed, Counselor.
Attorney: That too.

One of the issues that really miff's me is that those of us that are responsible and have flood and normal coverage, and have paid premiums for years are getting shafted by insurance. And the welfare dependents, that have NEVER worked, for 3 to 4 generations, will end up getting more than me for aid.
My boss, who use to live in Diamond Head lost everything, along with a second business he co-owned. The issue is that the wind came first and then the tidal surge finished off what the wind didn't get. And by the way the guy in Florida that mentioned he had no flood insurance for he didn't believe it would never reach him, the coast got a 35 to 40 foot surge, it can and will happen.
Wanted to be compensated for my lost is not immoral or being greedy, those premiums were paid for years, wind came first then water, insurance should do what it's supposed to do. I can appreciate the debate here, but in the real world we are years from ever returning to where we were, if that ever occurs.