Forums

35 boats damaged in California. More damage happened on coastline in Hawaii thru the nite. The tsunami has continuing ongoing power.

Shold be many marine claims in the Pacific Coast nations

Let's all take a moment, take a breath, and say a prayer for those affected by this tragedy.

I don't have a clue about the insurance environment in Japan but there's going to be thousands and thousands that need some assistance.  And, that help will not arrive immediately.  It will take days, weeks and months to address this.

We can only count our blessings that we are not there now.  Those of us that have survived tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and all kinds of disasters know what they are going through.  Those of us that have worked these same disasters know how devastating they can be.  And, we also know the frustration that comes when all we, as adjusters, can offer is money. 

I hope that Japan is modern enough to have an insurance system in place and that it comes up to speed as soon as it can.  Let's keep these folks in our thoughts for the next few days

Posted By Montana Goldust on 11 Mar 2011 02:40 PM

35 boats damaged in California. More damage happened on coastline in Hawaii thru the nite. The tsunami has continuing ongoing power.

Jerry, OMG the tsunami and quake and now a nuclear meltdown, crazy.

The wave hit our Pacific coast yesterday killing 1 and many marinas sustained millions of dollars in damage along the Pacific coast of the United States.

It is amazing to see the magnitude of destruction coming from the video of the tsunami and quake and now an explosion and nuclear meltdown.

This is so different than Haiti or Chile who were hit with large quakes recently.The damage in those countries had more to do with substandard building methods. With Japan, this damage we are seeing is from a quake that hit the most well built earthquake resistant structures in the world. Japan leads the way in earthquake construction. What this quake shows us is the awesome power of nature cannot be tempered no matter how well built a structure may be. What we are seeing in Japan is looking into the future to the death and destruction that we will see when the US is hit with a massive quake and Tsunami.

I would imagine Crawford will have a  deployment as they have subsidiaries in the Far East. Of course Japan has very good adjusters but they are going to be overwhelmed.

What this says to all of us is we need to prepare for this to happen to us within the continental United States and that right soon !!

Robby Robinson. 

Yes I was just reading where reactor 1 and three are out of control. They're saying reactor number two wasn't affected as much. I was just sitting here thinking about where a westerly wind would blow the radioactive fallout if it escapes.
  They are evacuating people as fast as they can over there. This does not look like a good situation for any of us.
I just pray today that there is no more loss of life in the world and God will shine his grace on all mankind. I pray that all people that don't know him drop to their knees ask for his forgiveness and open their hearts to him.
We are in a very exciting time, something the world has never seen before.

May the Lord's blessings be upon you this day,

Jerry Taylor

From BASIC EARTHQUAKE POLICY--HOMEOWNERS

LOSSES EXCLUDED

1.Fire or explosion.

2. Water damage resulting from:

a. flood, rain, surface water, waves, tsunami, tidal waves.........................
3. Controlled or uncontrolled nuclear hazard or any act or condition incident to any nuclear hazard.

The fire, of course, would be covered by insurance other than the Earthquake policy.

I just got out of an earthquake class yesterday, but years ago in my first one at Vale, Gene Hensley said his earthquake policy was his gas hot water heater. It was a joke, but it helped us remember that fire is basic.

BTW, in the KB we have all the CEA Forms. The KB is another area for the sharing of information and resouces.

Here is a link to the EQ section

It,s another world away. I have no idea if Japan has "dwellings" like the West does. I think they have pleanty of insurance coverage to cover these three events; however the culture may be something like America at the turn of the century. Send in your sworn proof of loss (with proper documentation) and we will review (from another part of the world) and get back to you.  They may have thousands of native adjusters with their ladders ready and the CCC auto program loaded.

I inspected an 18 million  flood loss at a village for a copper mine in Irian Jarawa in 1992 for an American Co. and did all the settlement in New Orleans, which took about one year.

I think American Cat. adjusters would be kinda lost with the language, construction, metric's and software. All this is just a guess. I do know very few American Adjusters have ever been needed in Canada,

It,s just a guess, but I think the worlds third largest economy would have lots if insured losses under marine , auto and "fire insurance" type contracts. Just flood alone would run into the 100 billion from the pictures. I just don,t think field inspectors will have to inspect each loss.. like we do roof claims for hail.

II think it will be more like NFIP did the low  value buildings  in Katrina and the carriers worked the autos.

In 1994 in Houston we has thousands of autos destroyed by flood and they were taken to several very large lots that could hold 5, 6 thousand and lined up by carriers in rows and one adjuster could inspect hundreds per day and the salvage buyers could purchase and remove hundreds each day. Very few adjusters needed. I know many of these auto,s were washed down and sent to Central and South America to rebuilders.The American title was killed in the data base.

Posted By Leland on 14 Mar 2011 03:28 AM
OK, but if the earthquake policy does not have "anti-concurrent causation" language these exclusions might not hold up. Does the earthquake policy have "anti-concurrent causation" language?

An HO3 covers damage from a vehicle but excludes damage from earth movement. There is also "anti-concurrent causation" language re earth movement. So if a heavy truck shakes the ground, causing the earth to move and cracks appear in the house, it is not covered even though vehicle damage is otherwise covered.

On a DP1 form "Earth Movement" is not a named peril, and is also excluded. But the same scenario of a heavy truck IS COVERED on a DP1 because the DP1 does not have any "anti-concurrent causation" language. Because there is no "anti-concurrent causation" language on the DP1 form the damage can be paid under the peril of "Vehicle" and it is irrelevant that a non-covered peril (earth movement) is one of links in the chain of causation.

So back to the Earthquake form: If an earthquake collapses a Nuclear plant near the insured dwelling, can the resulting damage really be successfully excluded under the nuclear exclusion? The (proximate) cause of loss is "Earthquake". If the policy excludes nuclear damage AND also has "anti-concurrent causation" language re nuclear losses than I would agree a denial would be correct. If the policy does not have anti-concurrent causation" there is more of a question.

Another important point is whether the earthquake policy talks about "direct" damage. If the policy only covers "direct" earthquake damage to the dwelling, then intervening causes of loss such as tsunami, radiation etc. are not covered because they are "indirect" causes of loss. If the policy requires "direct physical damage" from earthquake then Tsunami damage could be denied for TWO reasons: 1) denied because it is specifically excluded 2) also denied because the property has no "direct physical damage" from earthquake. If it can be excluded for both reasons a properly written denial letter should list both reasons. This would give the insurance company two defenses to a lawsuit rather than just one.

If I remember correctly the flood policy excludes fire but then turns right around and pays for fire if it is triggered by the flood. Maybe my memory is faulty but I think it says that.

So here are my questions re the Earthquake form:

1) Does it have "anti-concurrent causation" language re excluded perils?
2) Does it require direct physical damage to the dwelling from earthquake?
3) When it excludes fire, does it add it back in another part of the policy or is it 100% totally excluded?

I will look the answers up unless someone else does it first.

This basically is the old Katrina argument of wind Vs. flood but on STERIODS. Flood and earthquake damage can easily mimic the other. Boy this will be a huge CLUSTERF@#K when this hits CA, Oregon Washington or even in the Southern states that lie on a few fault lines. This CAE cert from the Ca earthquake Authority iis a ridiculously easy cert to obtain. With that being said, it will be a field day for PA's and plaintiff attorney's

A's and attorn