Posted on 09/21/2005 10:01:23 AM PDT by george76
Insurer's operating chief responds to Mississippi suit...
Allstate Corp. won't pay flooding claims stemming from Hurricane Katrina, Chief Operating Officer Tom Wilson said on Tuesday, in a direct challenge to a lawsuit filed last week by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.
Controversy has emerged surrounding the devastating flooding that followed the storm. Standard homeowners' insurance policies typically exclude flooding, partly because a national, government-run program covers those risks. However, many homeowners hit by Katrina may not have bought this extra coverage.
Mississippi's Hood sued Allstate and four other leading insurers in the state on Sept. 16, arguing that their flood exclusions should be voided and that they should pay flood claims.
"Exhibit one for us will be just the national flood-insurance programs -- advertising programs, which they put on very aggressively every year," he said. "People know this is a separate coverage, so we're not having many issues with our customers."
Allstate's Wilson did concede that there will be "issues" when assessing what damage was caused by wind and what was the result of flooding.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Ha! We'll see about that.
Why should that be Allstate's problem? For that matter, why should that be the taxpayer's problem? Answer, it shouldn't.
As they shouldn't, unless the storm (and not the flooding) damaged the property.
Mississippi's Hood sued Allstate and four other leading insurers in the state on Sept. 16, arguing that their flood exclusions should be voided and that they should pay flood claims.
And exactly why should they have to pay flood claims if it's excluded? I guess bankrupting all the insurance companies would make everything better.
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
ummmmmmmmm did they HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE??? (probably not)
I have no love for insurance companies but they have no reason to pay anything except exisiting policies.
Are they going to try to LAWSUIT them into paying for things they did not cover?
How do you determine what was damaged by wind, and by water. Something with water damage, could have been conceivably damaged by the wind first.
Maybe they should sue to force Allstate to pay the claims of people who didn't have insurance at all, or might have had their insurance with a different carrier.
What a crock. Go after the deep pockets, who cares if it's right or wrong. The trial lawyers are going to have a field day in the Gulf region.
May I presume from your comment that you agree that the insurance company should pay for damage specifically excluded from the policy?
Allstate has more grounds to sue NO than MS. NO didn't evacuate whereas MS didn't delay.
Allstates competitors should jump at this and say they will cover ALL claims flood or wind. They would soon have all of Allstates customers.
Allstate ping!
Nor should they.
No. However, you may presume that The Left will rain down holy hell on Allstate and Allstate will buckle.
I guess those folks with Allstate insurance weren't in 'good hands' after all.
Don't worry, the American tax payer is going to pay all those claims and then some. I almost wish I lived in NO. For a couple weeks of hardship I could have a new house at no cost to me.
That is why you saw buildings on fire...wink wink.
Great comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.