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 ...
IMO, hard to see how Mississippi can win that suit - looks to me the state is trying to jawbone the insurers into more generous payoff under the provisions that do apply (or perhaps that a politician is jsut playing to the voters) also looks like Allstate at least in not gonna' play ball.
What's the issue? If they didn't buy the supplemental, then they are out of luck. Am I out of line with that thinking?
I'm not so sure this is as cut and dried as most think. NO flooding due to a levee break is a true flood IMHO. But what about buildings that aren't in a flood plain but were hit by the extraordinary storm surge? Isn't the surge a result of the high winds? I'm not picking sides, but I see the argument.
Don't give them any ideas.
BTW, I think I'm going to cancel ALL my insurance, who needs it anymore? I'll just hire a lawyer and sue somebody when anything bad happens to me.
*sigh*
You betcha! :-)
I applied for a job at Allstate once. While they did not hire me, they DID take my address off the application and proceed to bombard me with junk mail.
Oh my, what will Kanye think!!
If the storm pushed the water into the house through the storm surge, Allstate should pay, unless a rider specifically excludes 'wind driven water' or all water damage.
If it's a levee break or a river flood, then Allstate shouldn't have to pay.
Seems pretty cut and dried to me.
Allstate doesn't like paying any claims.
This is really simple,if the policies in question specifically state that "flood" (my word) damage isn't covered,then that's it.My understanding is that most,if not all,standard homeowner's policies deny coverage for "flood" (again,my word) damage,just as they do with earthquake damage(unless you pay extra and get a rider).
And,BTW...are you the same "Texas Eagle" who once posted to the Fox News Sunday board and was once on Rush's show?
It's still flooding. Flooding is not covered in these policies, and they didn't want to pay extra for the flood coverage. If I go to a restaurant and pay for a sandwich, does that mean I'm entitled to a steak even so? That's what MS is asking for.
Do the math. The insurance company will make 10 times the profit by investing the $2B rather than taking a risk by paying out all that money for good will.
But they'll certainly be paying out a lot of "fire" claims from the Katrina stricken region.
Letter to my represenative and senators dated September 9;
Dear ,
The government needs to be compensated by people who intentionally live in disaster prone areas.
Every year there will be earthquakes in earthquake prone areas, there will be floods in areas purposely built and maintained below sea level, and there will be hurricanes in hurricane prone areas.
It is not proper that citizens in other states who purposely chose to live in areas not affected by these natural disasters be required to support the foolish whims and desires of others who want to live in a “beautiful place” that has natural dangers that reoccur.
I request that congress develop laws necessary to impose a “Natural Disaster Surcharge” on the insurance of properties in areas of the country that have been affected by natural disasters requiring federal funds to be spent for ensuing recoveries.
Such a surcharge would compensate the government for funds spent over a period of time and would only be fair for the country as a whole since those wanting to live in a disaster prone area would be required to pay their way for that privilege. This would also allow government to prepare financially for the next natural disaster.
Sincerely,
Ditto. What do you think of my post #48?
I think the big stickler will be NOLA. That was flood and anybody in the city that did not have flood insurance was stupid.
If the insurance companies knew the states were going to do this I wonder how many would have dropped those states.
Not at all. Allstate's only hope is that this story doesn't get any traction, though. As an Allstate client, I certainly hope it doesn't. No doubt my rates will increase if it is forced to pay.
I'm with you, I don't have answers only questions. For the people well off of the coast who lost everything to storm surge/wind/whatever, was flood insurance even available to them? Does the gov. offer flood ins. to those outside of flood plains?
Huh? Allstate is the one being sued by Mississippi, not the other way around.
If you did not have flood ins, then it is your problem, not the insurers problem.
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.