Insurance company 1 - homeowners 0.

[OldMan'sBoy]

Judge Senter has ruled in the first Katrina lawsuit about wind versus water and the legitimacy of the flood water exclusion.

http://www.mssd.uscourts.gov/news/Leona ... pinion.pdf

[Po Monkey Lounger]

This case, from a strictly legal standpoint (outside of the emotions), was a loser from the get go. While I sympathize with the homeowners on the coast, separate hurricane/flood coverage was available for those homeowners had they chosen to purchase it. Many did purchase it. And many did not, assuming the risk that they might sustain loses for which they would not be covered. I cannot imagine any insurance agent not informing their customers of the availability of such coverage and trying to sell their customers such coverage ---- after all, they are in the business of making money and they only make money when they sell policies.

Anyone with a substantial investment in real estate on the coast, who had earned that type of money to own such homes on the coast, would have known about their insurance coverages and what they needed.

It is very unfortunate that there were so many homeowners who did not have the right type of coverage in place to adequately protect themselves. Hopefully, in the future, those who choose to rebuild on the coast will choose to purchase such coverage(assuming it is still available), or will be financially able to assume the risk on their own with respect to any future storm damage. It WILL happen again, one day.

[deltadukman]

Its called the probability of catastophic loss. Many of the Insurance companies will not let there agents write over "x" number of policies in a certain area because of events such as this. If he wrote some to other dwellings in the same area then in my opinion he knew what he was doing. He was trying to not write that many in this area to make his claims report look better in events such as this. People trust their insurance agents and the family went off of their agents opinion. I belive that both were in the wrong in either not purchasing the flood coverage and not telling the family they need it.

[Bankermane]

From a banking prespective, if you have a customer in the flood zone and do not require them to have flood insurance, you are deemed to have self insured the home. In other words the bank loses and you walk away from the mortgage. Most of the people were flooded but were not in the flood zone. They were told that they didn't need flood insurance because they weren't in the flood zone.

[Grommet]

To expand on Bankermane's post the federal government forces those in the 100 year flood plain to have flood insurance if there is a lein against the property. So I can only assume that these particular cases were above that level.

[Deltamud77]

Another sad note to this will come from the stamina and resources of the attorneys representing these homeowners. There will have to be many individual trials for many years to come. At what point will the plaintiffs attorneys throw in the towel. Obviously, if they are winning, they will persevere. I don't know how much winning will be going on because of the reasons Po Monk mentioned. I fear that many of these people are going to take huge losses that will never be recouped, ultimately with no legal recourse. I hate insurance companies (used to defend them) and I hate plaintiffs attorneys (for the most part ) and I feel for the homeowners who lost everything. What a strange, monumental problem, a problem that will be around in the court system for 10 years or more.

[weimhunter]

I know some of you will hate me for saying this, but if the homeowners would have won this case it would effect every homeowner in MS because there would be even more claims thrown in the MS windpool which was under funded. That would have made insurance companies have to pay more to bail out the state. Which would cause homeowner rates in MS to got out the roof!!!!

[weimhunter]

Another sad note to this will come from the stamina and resources of the attorneys representing these homeowners. There will have to be many individual trials for many years to come. At what point will the plaintiffs attorneys throw in the towel. Obviously, if they are winning, they will persevere. I don't know how much winning will be going on because of the reasons Po Monk mentioned. I fear that many of these people are going to take huge losses that will never be recouped, ultimately with no legal recourse. I hate insurance companies (used to defend them) and I hate plaintiffs attorneys (for the most part ) and I feel for the homeowners who lost everything. What a strange, monumental problem, a problem that will be around in the court system for 10 years or more.

No hard feelings from us insurance agents about you hating us, we hate lawyers also. LOL

[Seymore]

Our family home in Bay Saint Louis was destroyed by the hurricane and we are in the same boat, pardon the pun, fighting the insurance companies. The family patriarch is taking a little different approach than filing suit against the insurance company. He's going after the holding company and if succesful, it'll be a RICO violation for the US attorney to pursue. That puts the insurance executives criminally liable. My simplistic mind gets lost real quick much beyond that, but, it'll get some attention. If it works. My bet is they'll settle before they let it get that far.

[timberjack]

Right's right and wrong's wrong. Those people had hurricane insurance and the flood was caused by the hurricane. The ins co. should have to pay. They better be glad I wasn't the judge over this case.........and don't give me that crap about rates going up. My rate just went up $100/yr and I don't live on the coast and I didn't have a claim. When I asked my agent why it went up he said it was so they could recoup their losses. It must be nice to be in a business where you can just arbitrarily raise your rates without fear of losing business just so you can maintain your margin. In my business if things get $hitty I have to deal with it a while until things level out. If I raise my rates then I run out of business, simple as that.

George Dale should be looking for a new job too. He's done a horrible job of overseeing the ins companies. He's scared of 'em or he's in their pocket.......one or the other. I'd make 'em pay or leave the state and as soon as they left there would be another company waiting in line to take their place and we'd all have affordable insurance. It's too much of a gravy train, there's too much money in it. Give me that job.......I ain't skeerd

[duck warrior]

delta duckman,

the quota system does not aply to flood insurance. It is available to as many people that want it as it is insured by the federal government. There is no exposure limitation when it comes to flood insurance in any given area. As a tax paying US citizen, you can get it if you want it.

[Jelly]

Right's right and wrong's wrong. Those people had hurricane insurance and the flood was caused by the hurricane. The ins co. should have to pay. They better be glad I wasn't the judge over this case.........and don't give me that crap about rates going up. My rate just went up $100/yr and I don't live on the coast and I didn't have a claim. When I asked my agent why it went up he said it was so they could recoup their losses. It must be nice to be in a business where you can just arbitrarily raise your rates without fear of losing business just so you can maintain your margin. In my business if things get $hitty I have to deal with it a while until things level out. If I raise my rates then I run out of business, simple as that.

George Dale should be looking for a new job too. He's done a horrible job of overseeing the ins companies. He's scared of 'em or he's in their pocket.......one or the other. I'd make 'em pay or leave the state and as soon as they left there would be another company waiting in line to take their place and we'd all have affordable insurance. It's too much of a gravy train, there's too much money in it. Give me that job.......I ain't skeerd

There is no such thing as "hurricane damage". It wind or water. Read your policy You think your premium going up $100/year was high? If judge were to rule that a standard HO policy covered flood, you rpremium would be up over $1000 cause guess what, you had to buy flood insurance not water how high your house...

"Another insurance company to take there place" are you out of your mind,? find one that WANTS to insure in MS that can't and I'll kiss your booty. When's the lasat time you saw and advertisement targeting just homeowner's insurance? I haven't seen one in years cause if the companies insuring here had there way and didn't care about their customers, they'd ALL pull out.

Tell me this, how long could you run a business that lost multimillions on a product year after year? The company I work for has lost an underwriting profit of 142 million over the past 11 years selling homeowners, and we don't insure on the coast. DO the math, everytime we bring in a dollar, we pay out $14.20

My wife's entire family lost their homes to the hurricane and never bitched once. They knew flood coverage was available. they chose not to buy it and lost the gamble. It sucks, I have worked my booty off helping them build their homes. and will continue to. George Dale is a hell of an insurnace commissioner in my opinion. He's got a tough job and I sure as hell wouldn't want it.

Done

[Skeeter]

I have a question, if hurricane insurance doesnt cover WIND or FLOOD, then what the hell does hurricane insurance cover?

insurance companies are the scum of the earth and i categorize them with car dealers...

D

[timberjack]

Where do I start? You must be an insurance man. Here goes:

I absolutely think $100 increase in my premium is high when I had no damage and I had no claims. Why should I have to pay for the insurance companies bad luck? Because that's the way they work?? I don't think so. The only ones that gambled here was the ins. company----and they lost......pay up.

If a co. was forced to pay and went belly up I guarantee you there would be another just waiting to jump in and collect all those easy premiums. Think about it.......what's the chances of having another katrina in the next several years?? Pretty slim and these ins co's know that or they would have pulled out after the first one. But they want us to be scared. they say "we'll go out of business if you make us pay judge, and nobody'll be able to buy a house cause they can't get insurance", what a crock........scare tactics.

This is the funniest thing I've heard today. You talk about how much money your company lost, what was it 140 mil over 11 years? Underwriting profit?? Whats that, ins speak for regular profit?? Somebody up the ladder's lying to you. No company in the world would have that dismal a bottom line and continue to operate. If you lost $14 to every dollar you made you wouldn't still be in business. Do you really believe what you just wrote?? Didn't you play on bigwater's flag football team?? Did you take a shot to the head or what??

Your wife's family didn't gamble. They're probably just nice folks who are scared of the ins companies and their deep pockets. The ins companies took the gamble and they lost. Now they're trying to welch and thanks to a federal judge just might get away with it. F 'em.........I don't owe any money.........I think I'll self insure.

Done.

[Skeeter]

Where do I start? You must be an insurance man. Here goes:

I absolutely think $100 increase in my premium is high when I had no damage and I had no claims. Why should I have to pay for the insurance companies bad luck? Because that's the way they work?? I don't think so. The only ones that gambled here was the ins. company----and they lost......pay up.

If a co. was forced to pay and went belly up I guarantee you there would be another just waiting to jump in and collect all those easy premiums. Think about it.......what's the chances of having another katrina in the next several years?? Pretty slim and these ins co's know that or they would have pulled out after the first one. But they want us to be scared. they say "we'll go out of business if you make us pay judge, and nobody'll be able to buy a house cause they can't get insurance", what a crock........scare tactics.

This is the funniest thing I've heard today. You talk about how much money your company lost, what was it 140 mil over 11 years? Underwriting profit?? Whats that, ins speak for regular profit?? Somebody up the ladder's lying to you. No company in the world would have that dismal a bottom line and continue to operate. If you lost $14 to every dollar you made you wouldn't still be in business. Do you really believe what you just wrote?? Didn't you play on bigwater's flag football team?? Did you take a shot to the head or what??

Your wife's family didn't gamble. They're probably just nice folks who are scared of the ins companies and their deep pockets. The ins companies took the gamble and they lost. Now they're trying to welch and thanks to a federal judge just might get away with it. F 'em.........I don't owe any money.........I think I'll self insure.

Done.

I couldnt have said it any better....now answer my question from above..

D