State Farm Held Liable in Katrina Case

Washington Times ^ | 1-11-07 | GARRY MITCHELL

[JZelle]

GULFPORT, Miss. (AP) -- A federal judge ruled against an insurance company Thursday in a Hurricane Katrina damage case that may have implications for hundreds of other homeowner lawsuits against insurers who refused to cover billions of dollars in damage from the storm's surge.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ruled that State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. is liable for $223,292 in damage caused by Hurricane Katrina to a Biloxi couple's home, but said a jury must decide whether to award millions of dollars more in punitive damages.

The jury was expected to start weighing punitive damages on Thursday afternoon.

Some of Senter's earlier rulings in other Katrina cases have favored the insurance industry, but his decision Thursday could give a boost to other lawsuits that homeowners filed against insurers after the storm.

[Froufrou]

Good. I'm sick and tired of insurance getting fat off the payments they owe and deny.

[Robert A Cook PE]

OK.

So who appointed this judge?

Let me guess: he ruled that (even though their policy excluded rising water damage or somesuch and that they NEVER paid for that kind of damage) that the insurance company MUST cover that kind of damage anyway.

Now, how many insurance companies will IMMEDIATELY raise OUR rates to cover THIS JUDGE'S incompetence?

[em2vn]

That calls for an amen.

[Just sayin]

Good, it is about time that State Farm (and other insurance companies) have to start paying for the risk they collect premiums to take on. Punative damages in this example should be small and thus symbolic, breaking them is not the goal becasue others need their policies paid also.

[L98Fiero]

No kidding. Mom has a friend wrapped up in this. The wind pushed water up hill and through her house and they were trying to call it a flood.

[KarlInOhio]

Here are the most important lines from the article:

The Broussards claim that a tornado during the hurricane destroyed their home. State Farm blamed all the damage on Katrina's storm surge.

The judge said the insurer had not met the burden of proof in challenging the policyholders' claim that the winds of Katrina were responsible for their loss.

I guess if the house just disappears it is kind of hard to prove that the water did it instead of the wind.

[sgtbono2002]

Insurance Companie pulled the same crap here in Maryland when Isabel tore things up. Screwed hundreds of people out of thousands of dollars.

They like collecting payments,but they arent in to paying out benefits.

[ContemptofCourt]

Carter appointee. Old judge...has been on senior status since 1998.

[Red Badger]

You (and I) are in the minority..........

[Howlin]

No, you are not in the minority.

[KarlInOhio]

Let me guess: he ruled that (even though their policy excluded rising water damage or somesuch and that they NEVER paid for that kind of damage) that the insurance company MUST cover that kind of damage anyway.

You don't have to guess. You can go to the link and read the article. The judge said that State Farm didn't prove that it was the water instead of the wind that destroyed the house. I don't know how good the evidence was, but this wasn't just a case of the judge rewriting the insurance contract.

[Froufrou]

That is the dreaded 'wind-driven rain' which any fool would understand is rain that comes down when it's windy. Not so at FEMA.

Their agent certified a new roof which subsequently proved NOT to be impervious to 'wind-driven rain.' Claim was denied. I $!%&!&!&!& FEMA. Arrogance bites.

[Howlin]

Good! Now YOUR insurance rates will go up to pay for claims that aren't covered.

Color you dumb.

[enraged]

Me three. gotta read that fine print before you buy insurance.

[Just sayin]

If wind blows the water ashore and it instantly receeds that is damage caused by wind, not a flood. This is especially true when that very wind took the roof off the house and the damage resulting from the rainwater is denied.

I see your point that flood damage was not paid for in the policy but you have to see that insurance companies have been abusing that loophole for a long time and it is time for that to come to a close. This wasn't a flood it was a storm surge brought on by wind.

No payout for water? None for wind? An electrical wire caused a fire due to falling becasue of a surge and deny the payment due to water? Where does it end and the insurance companies actually have to pay out claims????

[steve-b]

No; he ruled that the insurance company had failed to substantiate its position that the damage was of a non-covered type.

The punitive damages, if any, should be based on whether or not there is evidence that the company deliberately evaded paying claims through unsubstantiated findings that clients' damages were of a non-covered type.

[Post-Neolithic]

From the story:"State Farm and other insurers say their homeowner policies cover damage from wind but not from water, and that the policies exclude damage that could have been caused by a combination of both, even if hurricane-force winds preceded a storm's rising water."

So if high winds totally destroy your home and then a flood comes along, State Farm will refuse to pay? Typical of Insurance companies, they have some of the most greedy sleezy attorneys on their payroll. All for the express purpose of screwing the insured.

[Froufrou]

Okay, wisenheimer, answer me this:

What's the frickin' point of having insurance if they weasle out of valid claims?

Oh. Maybe to satisfy the mortgagor that you're protected, when in fact you AREN'T?

[Gabz]

Normally I would be in agreement with you both, but according to the article the insurer did not prove it was water not wind damage.