Read The Fine Print

[fritz]

Well, it made the stock market go up for those who own shares in this shitty business--

 

GULFPORT, Miss. - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that an insurance company’s policies do not cover damage from flood waters or storm surge in a decision that could affect hundreds of upcoming cases related to property damage from Hurricane Katrina.

 

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ruled that a Mississippi Gulf Coast couple cannot collect damages from storm surge caused by Katrina because Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.’s policies do not cover wind-driven water damage.

 

Senter Jr. said Paul and Julie Leonard of Pascagoula could be compensated for damage that they could prove was caused by high winds, however.

 

Story continues below ↓

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

advertisement

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

“Almost all the damage to the Leonard residence is attributable to the incursion of water,” Senter wrote in the 13-page decision.

 

Senter’s ruling could set a precedent for hundreds of other court challenges to the insurance industry for denying billions of dollars in claims after the Aug. 29 hurricane ravaged the coasts of Louisiana and Mississippi.

 

Although Senter ruled that Nationwide’s policies do not cover damage from storm surge, the judge also concluded a key policy provision the company has used to deny coverage is ambiguous.

 

Nationwide and other insurers say their homeowners policies cover damage from a hurricane’s wind, but not in cases where it resulted from a combination of wind and water.

 

 

Click for related content

Before the deluge: Why to buy flood insurance

Full Coverage: Hurricane Watch

Special Report: Rising from ruin

 

 

 

“This reading of the policy would mean that an insured whose dwelling lost its roof in high winds and at the same time suffered an incursion of even an inch of water could recover nothing under his Nationwide policy,” he wrote.

 

“From our perspective, it lifts a very large cloud of uncertainty that has been hanging over the insurance market of the Gulf Coast,” Joseph Annotti, spokesman for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said in reaction to the ruling. “A healthy insurance market is absolutely key to a rejuvenated economy down there.”

 

Shares of most property and casualty insurers rose following the ruling, amid a generally surging stock market.

 

“It’s a favorable first decision for the industry,” said Fox-Pitt Kelton analyst Gary Ransom. “I never really had much doubt that this was the way it was going to work out. There’s a lot of precedent for this. It’s not like we’re interpreting these contracts for the first time.”

 

The Leonards had estimated the total damage to their home at $130,253. They said $47,365 in damage was caused by wind. Nationwide paid only $1,661, blaming the remainder on the storm surge.

 

The couple’s attorneys had asked for more than $158,000 for the damage to the house and its contents, plus interest and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Senter, however, ruled that Nationwide only owed the Leonards about $1,228 more than what the company already has paid them for wind damage.

 

Both sides claimed victory in the wake of Senter’s ruling.

 

“The Leonards did not win as much money as I hoped they would have, but they won this case,” said one of their attorneys, Richard “Dickie” Scruggs. “It’s always great to get a win in the first game of the season, whether it’s by one point or 30 points.”

 

Paul Leonard, a police lieutenant, acknowledged that an extra $1,228 only covers a fraction of the repair costs for his home, but he also considered Senter’s ruling a victory.

 

“I believe anybody in a civil trial asks for the moon and is able to live with what they get,” he said.

 

The Leonards claimed a Nationwide agent, Jay Fletcher, told them they didn’t need flood insurance.

 

Senter rejected the Leonards’ claim that the agent’s alleged assurances make Nationwide liable for damage from both wind and water. Paul Leonard mistakenly inferred that his policy covered water damage, the judge ruled.

 

“Fletcher did not materially misrepresent the terms of the Nationwide homeowners policy to the Leonards, and Fletcher did not make any statements which could be reasonably understood to alter the terms of the Nationwide policy,” Senter wrote.

 

The couple’s lawsuit was the first among hundreds of Katrina insurance cases to be tried since the storm slammed into the Gulf Coast nearly a year ago, demolishing tens of thousands of homes.

 

Senter presided over an eight-day trial without a jury last month. He is hearing virtually all the Katrina insurance cases in Mississippi, so his ruling will be scrutinized by thousands of Gulf Coast homeowners as well as the nation’s top insurers.

 

fritz

[roscoedoh]

I know that many think lawyers rank next to Lucifer himself, but I think we aught to tar, feather, and ride out of town on the rails all the insurance men before we do anything else.

 

This is just terrible and I feel for the people of Mississippi who just can't catch a break. I wonder if they'd been from New Orleans if they'd of had better luck?

[Doble Troble]

Nationwide is on your side.

 

And you're in good hands with Allstate.

[z1r]

We'll make you an offer you CAN'T refuse.

[AzRednek]

Most homeowner's type policys are not much more than modified fire policys. Flood, wind driven water (not wind driven rain), earthquake (including monor movement such as settling) are usually excluded or not listed as a covered peril. "My agent said" is usually useless as the policy will read somewhere, something to the effect of "no addtional coverage is expressed or implied unless it is specifically listed". The policy is in effect a contract and anything the agent says is like any other oral contract, not worth the paper it is written on.

 

Many (not all) insurance agents have the morals of a used car salesman and will say or do what ever it takes to make a sale. In my opinion and I'm sure there are alot of exceptions to the rules. Claims people I worked with were the type of person that wants to get ahead and don't care whom they hurt getting there. Several years ago I had the extreme pleasure of hammering a State Farm claims adjuster that had cheated my mother. Once the claim was in the hands of their lawyers I did everything I could to run up the legal bill and bury them with correspondence and phone calls.

 

I was employed for about 6 months by Farmers Insurance in 1970. I was desperate for a job and the need to support a family. I was fired for lying about my age. I needed to be 21 to get a license and was only 20 when the Dept of Insurance caught up with me. The best benefit I derived from the job was the intense training.

 

Take about an hour and read every word of your policy and you might be surprised what is not covered. If you don't completely understand a paticular word, look it up. Pay alot of attention to the section on exclusions. There may be other exclusions not listed in the section on exclusions buried elsewhere in the policy.

[fritz]

"Many (not all) insurance agents have the morals of a used car salesman and will say or do what ever it takes to make a sale. "

 

I think we can add a few more names to that list, namely military recruiters and real estate agents! And many of the real estate agents double dip as insurance agents. Hell, why not. It's a schitty business.

 

I have a feeling some of you must have been screwed by one of the "rogues list" nominees listed above.

 

fritz