In a decision which is bound to have MSM cameras and reporters all over the Gulf Coast:
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
...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.
The policy language was ruled "ambiguous." That's not uncommon for casualty language.
A larger question which should be addressed: did these homeowners have FLOOD insurance? If not, why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Do you have any idea how much flood insurance is?
Maybe they were donating all of their money to Church or paying taxes (yes, intentional sarcasm)
Umm, maybe because they lived 10 miles inland, not near any body of water?
Sarcasm? What's that?
The Nationwide agent told them they did not need flood insurance. That was a big part of their case.
Many of the uninsured insured were paying for very expensive special hurricane coverage on their insurance. Who would ever think that a hurricane rider would not cover hurricane damage?
As to proximity to water--maybe, maybe not. To me, flood insurance is tempting if I am on or under sea-level.
Unfortunately, representations by an agent don't mean squat, as most of us already know.
As to "hurricane coverage," that may be subject of further litigation.
Don't get me wrong: I think casualty insurers are nasty lying b*&^ds in general.
Post a Comment