Tags - Popular | FAQ  

PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 10/26/2006 6:54 PM by  irvingsewell
Wind vs Flood
 13 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
host
CatAdjuster.org Founder
Posts:708


--
10/10/2006 9:08 AM

    Bulletin Board Transfer -Posted 10/9 by Dave Sokolowski

     

    Just wondering if anyone else saw Sen. Trent Lott admit on the Daily Show that his home was washed away. I saw it on the rerun this AM. I wonder how many other homes in his area were washed away.

    Tags: Flood
    0
    wscook
    Member
    Member
    Posts:68


    --
    10/10/2006 9:17 AM
    He maintains that the wind driven ocean washed his home away.
    William S Cook PA
    William S Cook Public Adjuster/Umpire/Appraiser
    0
    Tom Toll
    Moderator & Life Member
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:1865


    --
    10/10/2006 11:45 AM
    Hope he knows more about legislation than he does policy interpretationbc001lg.jpg. Guess he does not know how to read a policy. Typical politician and wants preferred treatment due to his capacity. This is not his home, but is a typical wave washed home.
    Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.
    0
    PORTASATGUY
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:49


    --
    10/10/2006 11:20 PM
    lol, politicians always want preferencial treatment, seems like???? Dunno?
    R. Estes
    0
    khromas
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:28


    --
    10/11/2006 10:05 AM
    Trent Lott is the brother-in-law of Dickie Scruggs - attorney to the poor unfortunate masses, who is trying to make millions off insurance like he did off tobacco. Think he is being coached on how to phrase his comments by Bro?[b] [/b]

    I handled a wind/flood combo on a house 3 doors down from Scrugg's house in Pascagoula and I think Lott had a house on the same block. Right on the beach. (My insured wanted NOTHING to do with Scruggs! Didn't think a lot of him.) Mine was interesting in that I could verify that flood took out the bottom floor but left enough standing to hold the second floor/roof structure up. The water went out and when the wind shifted around from the northwest, it lowered the upper section to the ground.
    Paid flood limits for first floor and wind picked up the second floor. Result? Very happy insured and claim addressed properly with applicable policies paying what they were REQUIRED to pay. Had to make sure the reports were very clear but the carrier never batted an eye.
    0
    PORTASATGUY
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:49


    --
    10/11/2006 11:08 AM
    Does anyone know Who Scoped Lott's Home on this same Block, I am curious as to the Final results?
    R. Estes
    0
    khromas
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:28


    --
    10/11/2006 1:42 PM
    Since Lott's loss is in litigation, whoever DID scope that baby better keep a VERY LOW PROFILE!
    CADO is NOT the place to be discussing that little puppy. It was a SF policy if I heard right.

    (Was it one of the "sisters"? Wouldn't THAT just be peachy keen?)
    0
    Dimechimes
    Member
    Member
    Posts:196


    --
    10/11/2006 2:12 PM
    Here is an article confirming above on the SF cases for Lott and others. It will be interesting to see the outcome 4/1/07 of the Homeland security investigation./

    By Anita Lee, The Sun Herald, Biloxi, Miss.

    Oct. 5--WASHINGTON -- A bill President Bush signed Wednesday directs the Homeland Security Department to investigate how insurers have handled Hurricane Katrina claims.

    Specifically, the inspector general's office of the department is supposed to investigate whether insurance companies "improperly attributed" hurricane damage to flooding rather than wind. Flooding, which includes Hurricane Katrina's storm surge, is covered under the National Flood Insurance Program. Insurance company policies cover wind damage but exclude storm surge.

    The bill requires the inspector general's office to report conclusions of its investigation to Congress by April 1.

    Sen. Trent Lott added the provision calling for the investigation to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which passed both chambers Friday. U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor had included a similar provision in the Flood Insurance Modernization and Reform Act, but that bill failed.

    Although insurance companies do not cover flood losses, they do handle policies and investigate flood claims for the NFIP.

    Lott and Taylor are suing their insurer, State Farm Fire & Casualty, over Hurricane Katrina damage. Lott owned a home on the Pascagoula waterfront, while Taylor's waterfront home was in Bay St. Louis. Both congressmen had flood insurance, but maintain their homes also suffered wind damage that should have been covered by State Farm.

    They have championed the causes of thousands of homeowners who also believe they were unfairly treated by their insurance companies.

    Visit our Adjusters Information Blog
    www.dimechimes.wordpress.com www.Linkedin.com/in/dimechimesclaimSmentor www.Twitter.com/ClaimSmentor www.ClaimSmentor.com
    0
    Dimechimes
    Member
    Member
    Posts:196


    --
    10/11/2006 2:14 PM
    Here are also the case numbers involved to include the case number on the EA Renfroe case against the sisters:

    Katrina-Related Brawl With State Farm Heats Up
    Whistleblowers, lawyers allege insurer used biased reports to deny claims

    Peter Geier
    The National Law Journal
    October 11, 2006

    [url=http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1160471120066]
    Allegations by whistleblowers and plaintiffs lawyers that State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. used a "one-size-fits-all" engineering report to deny policyholders' Katrina-related claims are stirring up Mississippi's southern federal district.

    State and federal prosecutors and grand jurors are looking into allegations that insurance claims were denied on the basis of a biased engineering report. The allegations were brought to light by two claims adjusters who had worked for an Alabama risk management firm under contract with Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm.

    Richard T. "Flip" Phillips of Smith, Phillips, Mitchell, Scott & Nowak of Batesville, Miss., an attorney representing Judy M. Guice in a mass tort on behalf of Mississippi homeowners who lost their homes, alleges that State Farm's tactics reveal "a calculated strategy of wrongful claims denial." Guice v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 06-cv-1 (S.D. Miss.).

    "If they're allowed to do this, the lesson the insurance industry will have learned is that in mass catastrophe situations, a calculated course of across-the-board, wrongful claims denial and trying one case at a time pays," Phillips said.

    State Farm spokesman Phil Supple said that the company has been resolving claims fairly and is cooperating with state and federal probes into its activities.

    Loretta L. Worters, vice president of the New York-based Insurance Information Institute, an insurance industry-funded group, said that the accusations were merely the plaintiffs lawyers latest attempt "to see what, if anything, will stick -- both through the media and in a court of law."

    "First, it was the so-called hurricane deductible (which does not exist), then it was the supposedly vague policy language (which, in fact, a judge has ruled is clear); now it is unfounded charges of conspiracy. As each one of [their] arguments gets shot down, [they try] a new tactic," Worters wrote in an e-mail.

    Underlying the litigation is the issue of whether the damage to policyholders' homes was caused by Katrina's high winds, which most policies cover, or by the storm surge and high waters, against which many policyholders were not insured. The southern district of Mississippi so far has denied class certification on the ground that each case involves its own set of circumstances as to the percentage of wind to water damage.

    But the plaintiffs allege that State Farm used a "generic engineering report ... which concluded that all of the hurricane damage to property on the Mississippi Gulf Coast was caused by storm surge and not by hurricane wind," in essence to deny all of their claims, according to an amended complaint filed in McFarland v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 06-466 (S.D. Miss.).

    Plaintiffs further allege that State Farm is following a pattern of fraudulent claims handling that was established in Oklahoma, Texas and other jurisdictions around the country.

    A federal grand jury in Jackson, Miss., that is investigating these allegations reportedly asked to see the record and transcripts of an Oklahoma insurance claim case in which a state jury awarded $9.9 million in punitive damages in May to a homeowner who sued State Farm after a tornado destroyed his home in 1999. Watkins v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. CJ-2000-303 (Grady Co., Okla., Dist. Ct.).

    In a related development, a recent State Farm motion for a protective order identifies by name two of five State Farm employees who are possible targets of state and federal criminal investigations and grand jury proceedings over claims-handling issues. State Farm has sought to prevent its employees from being deposed in civil matters while the criminal probes are pending.

    Plaintiffs lawyers support their allegations regarding State Farm's claims handling with at least 15,000 documents copied and disclosed to them and to state and federal law enforcement authorities by Cori Rigsby Moran and Kerri Rigsby, sisters who were formerly adjusting Katrina claims for State Farm through their former employer, E.A. Renfroe & Co. of Birmingham, Ala. The sisters reportedly now work for Richard F. "Dickie" Scruggs of Oxford, Miss., who represents the McFarland plaintiffs. He did not return a call for comment.

    Renfroe is now suing Moran and Rigsby in federal court in Alabama, seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages for the sisters' alleged breach of contract and violation of the Alabama Trade Secrets Act. E.A. Renfroe & Co. Inc. v. Moran, No. 06-1752 (N.D. Ala.).


    Visit our Adjusters Information Blog
    www.dimechimes.wordpress.com www.Linkedin.com/in/dimechimesclaimSmentor www.Twitter.com/ClaimSmentor www.ClaimSmentor.com
    0
    Darryl
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:5


    --
    10/11/2006 5:00 PM
    I think most would agree that the majority of the water was wind driven, DUH. The policy states not covered. However, Bill Clinton had problem with the definition of "is" so what can we expect. It can only be settled by a court case to see whether it is determined that the wording is ambiguous. We all have our beliefs, but in the end it will be the courts that decide as to whether the "contract of adhesion", the policy, was ambiguous or not.

    I have seen some amazing decisions, as have most of you.
    0
    Ray Hall
    Senior Member
    Senior Member
    Posts:2443


    --
    10/13/2006 3:38 PM
    I was in a meeting this year with about 35 other adjusters and I ask the person holding the meeting who has all the 3 & 4 letter designations behind his name and thirty years as a manager a question.

    Do you think with this assembled group of adjusters, that any one of us will have to have an expert to determine in our own minds "what is wind and what is flood".

    His answer was the answer to my question NO!!!
    0
    catwoman
    Member
    Member
    Posts:47


    --
    10/20/2006 6:47 AM
    All the hoopla that the press is feeding the American public is just more of the same, and people like Trent Lott give them a headline. They have been turning our society into victims for years now. As a result, no one takes responsiblility for anything anymore. If you do not get the outcome you want out of your insurance claim, it could not possibly be that YOU did not read and understand your policy, its the IC's fault. If you kill yourself with cigarettes, its not your fault that you got into the car, went to store, bought them, lit them, and inhaled them daily for 20 years, its the tabacco company. If someone shoots you, no problem, put the criminal in jail, and sue the gun manufactures. I have seen many, many people hope the make a "profit" on their claim, and some do. I have had good friends that have admitted to claiming property that they did not have and get away with it, and they seem to think that its like a little white lie, that they are somehow making the IC pay for sticking to people. and why not? Everything you see in TV and press says that they are crooked. The media has made all big business an enemy in our country, and IC's are just one of many of their prime targets.
    0
    jmcap
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:1


    --
    10/24/2006 10:19 AM
    Very interesting strategem.
    My Compliments.

    0
    irvingsewell
    Guest
    Guest
    Posts:11


    --
    10/26/2006 6:54 PM
    Insurance is many people paying in to a whole account in the interest to protect those in unfortunate events.This brings me to a question of individuals ability to reap on the honest with their dishonesty.I dont believe it is correct to list individuals claims however this is a public figure.I think he says alot about himself as a person intrusted with the welfare of many.This is to common.
    0
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    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.