Register
Menu

Forums

Forums  /  Claims   /  Flood Claims  /  CA U.S. District Court says Katrina storm surge ..
Sketch My Roof

Tags - Popular | FAQ  

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 08/28/2007 8:30 PM by  LarryW
CA U.S. District Court says Katrina storm surge ..
 5 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
host
CatAdjuster.org Founder
Posts:709


--
08/27/2007 1:50 PM

    is not excluded by excess policy's flood exclusion.

    In the Insurance Coverage Law Blog (located here), the author David Rossmiller reviews the August 16 decision in Northrop Grumman v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.,  lawsuit.  

    It appears that the decision was at least in part based on the lack of the phrase "whether driven by wind or not,"   

    Some good reading if you get a chance check it out.

    Roy
    Contact Us - Search CADO - Storm Page - The Career Page - CADO Channels
    0
    LarryW
    Member
    Member
    Posts:114


    --
    08/27/2007 8:33 PM
    Is there a link for that Roy?
    No one is absolutely worthless, at the very least you can serve as a bad example.
    0
    sbeau4014
    Founding Member
    Member
    Member
    Posts:427


    --
    08/27/2007 8:50 PM
    Click where is says "(located here)". Good article. why they chose to have this tried in CA is beyond me, except for the fact they they weould be hard pressed to find an impartial jury along the gulf coast considering how big they are there. Plus there is a huge political disadvantage of trying it there. I still can't imagine CA being any better.
    0
    host
    CatAdjuster.org Founder
    Posts:709


    --
    08/27/2007 9:31 PM
    Hi Larry, sorry about that , the link was about a mile long so I put it under that text. I didn't mean to hide it.
    Roy
    Contact Us - Search CADO - Storm Page - The Career Page - CADO Channels
    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    08/28/2007 12:33 PM

    I have seen several layers  of cover that have the language in the upper layers that the amount of cover is the "same as the underlying first layer". I am trying to think what was the intent of the upper layer(s) not being as broad as the underlying?

    ** Reread the article and did not take into account the SIR between 100  to 500 million. This opine may stand.
    0
    LarryW
    Member
    Member
    Posts:114


    --
    08/28/2007 8:30 PM

    It presents a good argument for form following excess policies.

    No one is absolutely worthless, at the very least you can serve as a bad example.
    0
    You are not authorized to post a reply.

    Forums Claims Flood Claims

    These Forums are dedicated to discussion of Claims Adjusting.

     

    For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines: 

    • No Advertising. 
    • No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or others to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
    • No Flaming or Trolling.
    • No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
    • Terms of Use Apply

      Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.