|
|
| Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court (235645) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (235645) | |
Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 2 16:53:26 2007 Homeowners in Katrina case lose in courtInsurance policies did not cover flood damage, federal appeals court says [ap] PT Aug 2, 2007 NEW ORLEANS - Hurricane Katrina victims whose homes and businesses were destroyed when floodwaters breached levees in the 2005 storm cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday. The case could affect thousands of rebuilding residents and business owners in Louisiana. Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute in New York, said in June that a ruling against the industry could have cost insurers $1 billion. “This event was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs’ insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written,” Judge Carolyn King wrote for a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, the panel found those who filed the suit “are not entitled to recover under their policies,” she said. More than a dozen insurance companies, including Allstate and Travelers, were defendants. The decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who in November sided with policyholders arguing that language excluding water damage from some of their insurance policies was ambiguous. Duval said the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God — such as excessive rainfall — and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina’s landfall. But the appeals panel concluded that “even if the plaintiffs can prove that the levees were negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that the breaches were due to this negligence, the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs’ policies unambiguously preclude their recovery.” “Regardless of what caused the failure of the flood-control structures that were put in place to prevent such a catastrophe, their failure resulted in a widespread flood that damaged the plaintiffs’ property,” and policies clearly excluded water damage caused by floods, King wrote. This was a consolidated case, including about 40 named plaintiffs, including Xavier University, and more than a dozen insurance companies. It is just one of the cases pending in federal court over Katrina damage. The Army Corps of Engineers faces thousands of claims for damage resulting after the levees breached; King noted in her opinion that dozens more cases, some consolidated and involving property owners suing insurers, are pending in federal court in New Orleans. Allstate spokesman Mike Siemienas said the Illinois-based company is pleased with the court’s findings. Several other attorneys, on both sides of the case, did not immediately return telephone messages or declined comment. ............. hell whats the use with having house insurance in the 1st place? and why do some states force you to have it ? juist look at this Sh---t !! |
|
|
| (235652) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Thu Aug 2 17:19:57 2007, in response to Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 2 16:53:26 2007. Flood damage is never covered under home insurance. If you live someplace whose normal elevation is three feet below sea level, you purchase flood insurance. |
|
|
| (235661) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Thu Aug 2 17:43:47 2007, in response to Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by Alex L. on Thu Aug 2 17:19:57 2007. I love the clause where if you're roof sustains winddamage. And weeks later another storm comes by, then you pay two deductables for one damage. |
|
|
| (235665) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 2 17:53:51 2007, in response to Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by Alex L. on Thu Aug 2 17:19:57 2007. thts because i got insurance because i got beach front property in[ denver colorado ] !! and my property will have prime views of the pacific ocean !! lol |
|
|
| (235670) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Aug 2 18:00:49 2007, in response to Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 2 17:53:51 2007. If California sinks into the Pacific Ocean due to an earthquake, the economic damage to the entire country into a depression that would make the 1929 crash and the Great Depression look like a kiddie ride.California will sink into the Pacific in 98 million years, since the coastal plane is heading for Alaska at the breakneck speed of .5000 of an inch per decade. |
|
|
| (235671) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 2 18:02:47 2007, in response to Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by Dan Lawrence on Thu Aug 2 18:00:49 2007. we say this a street slang out here ....its when someone says something insane then we throw the ''i got some beach front property in denver etc'' stuff at em! the earth is moving for sure |
|
|
| (235677) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Aug 2 18:11:33 2007, in response to Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 2 16:53:26 2007. I don't understand your problem here. Are you saying that insurance companies should be forced to pay out settlements for a type of damage specifically mentioned in their policies as something that is NOT covered in any way? Anyone who lives near the Mississippi should know that standard insurance does not cover flood damage. Where were they back in 1993 when the midwest flooding basically brought this issue out into the public's eye? |
|
|
| (235682) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by orange blossom special on Thu Aug 2 18:15:03 2007, in response to Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Aug 2 18:11:33 2007. Insurance companies aren't in business to write you a check. |
|
|
| (235691) | |
Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Aug 2 18:33:45 2007, in response to Re: Why bother with House Insurance? Homeowners in Katrina case lose in court, posted by orange blossom special on Thu Aug 2 18:15:03 2007. Exactly, which is why no company in it's right mind would sell flood insurance to people living in New Orleans. The government does offer it's own flood insurance for people in high-risk areas, but you have to sign up for it. |
|
|