A Lesson in Reading your Homeowners Policy

[TexasLidig8r]

No big surprise in this opinion.

Insurance companies are going to play it even tighter to the vest..

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/15/katrina.lawsuit/index.html

The short version was a homeowner brought suit against their insurance company and agent when the insurance company refused to pay the majority of their claim based on damage from Katrina. Ins. Co. cited a "flood exemption."

Federal judge held homeowner can recover for wind damage but not flood damage as it was spelled out as exempt in the policy. The Court also did not buy the homeowner's claim that the agent had misrepresented the terms of the policy.

[Widescreen]

Here in the Great State of Texas, we don't get any actual "rain" so there's little need for "flood insurance".

[jk the sooner fan]

the last word hasnt been spoken on that case just yet.....

[yermom]

Here in the Great State of Texas, we don't get any actual "rain" so there's little need for "flood insurance".

tell that to Galveston residents :eek:

[85Sooner]

Here in the Great State of Texas, we don't get any actual "rain" so there's little need for "flood insurance".

NO SH!T

[Widescreen]

tell that to Galveston residents :eek:
I'm not certain if Galveston counts as "Texas". ;)

[AlbqSooner]

After Andrew hit South Florida, Insurance companies, faced with a ton of claims from people who had flood insurance, pointed out the distinction between "Rising waters flooding" and "Wind driven waters flooding".

Hence, when you read your homeowners policy, read it even more carefully.

[Okla-homey]

Confucious say, Man who live in flood plain with no flood clause in policy got no call to b1tch when insurance company no payee outee.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Okay, I'm on vacation, but this post is so stupid, I had to respond.

First, Lid is a 'Horn, yes, but one I respect. He's solid politically.

Second, Lid and I are both folks with J.D.s. However, I think Lid's inner and outer lawyer is getting the best of him here. And, I mean in a big way. How is a judge saying that the policy will be enforced as written mean the insurance company is playing it "closer to the vest"?

A homeowners policy is not a rocket science manual. It lists perils covered, it lists exclusions. Windstorm, people, has been covered since they expanded from fire only coverage decades ago. There's no question about whether or not windstorm damage is covered. As sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, your homeowners policy has windstorm coverage.

In the same vein, flood damage is explicitly excluded, and such has been upheld in even the screwiest of jurisdictions for years. I mean, it's a no-brainer.

All that is happening here is that plaintiffs attorney are out trying to squeeze any type of money they can for themselves from the hurricane tragedies of 2005. It's ridiculous. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of a judge making an insurance company cover flood damage in a homeowner's policy. A child prodigy will make a Badger-like space shuttle out of household items before flood damage is covered by a homeowner's policy.

http://www.xenafan.com/movies/bod/images/badger08.jpg

P.S. - It's also well-settled law that insurance agents don't have to go page-by-page and read the policy to the homeowner. Courts have always ruled that people can't just buy a policy, not read it, file a claim for something explicitly excluded, then get away with suing the agent. I mean, come on Lid, you're killing me here, dude. You know better. If anything, the attorneys filing these stupid suits and wasting everyone's time and money should have their licenses pulled.

[olevetonahill]

dUMM ASSES Live on the side of a hill :P
No prob. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Okay, I'm on vacation, but this post is so stupid, I had to respond.

First, Lid is a 'Horn, yes, but one I respect. He's solid politically.

Second, Lid and I are both folks with J.D.s. However, I think Lid's inner and outer lawyer is getting the best of him here. And, I mean in a big way. How is a judge saying that the policy will be enforced as written mean the insurance company is playing it "closer to the vest"?

A homeowners policy is not a rocket science manual. It lists perils covered, it lists exclusions. Windstorm, people, has been covered since they expanded from fire only coverage decades ago. There's no question about whether or not windstorm damage is covered. As sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, your homeowners policy has windstorm coverage.

In the same vein, flood damage is explicitly excluded, and such has been upheld in even the screwiest of jurisdictions for years. I mean, it's a no-brainer.

All that is happening here is that plaintiffs attorney are out trying to squeeze any type of money they can for themselves from the hurricane tragedies of 2005. It's ridiculous. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of a judge making an insurance company cover flood damage in a homeowner's policy. A child prodigy will make a Badger-like space shuttle out of household items before flood damage is covered by a homeowner's policy.


P.S. - It's also well-settled law that insurance agents don't have to go page-by-page and read the policy to the homeowner. Courts have always ruled that people can't just buy a policy, not read it, file a claim for something explicitly excluded, then get away with suing the agent. I mean, come on Lid, you're killing me here, dude. You know better. If anything, the attorneys filing these stupid suits and wasting everyone's time and money should have their licenses pulled.

Every single thing you've said here is correct and receives the Frozen Sooner Seal of Approval (look for it on posts!)-except for the fact that windstorm is beginning to be excluded in a lot of contracts, especially on the East Coast.

A contract is a contract and you get what you pay for. If you want flood coverage, buy it from the FAIR plan like everyone else. Insurance companies aren't in the business of providing flood coverage-you just can't write it in a profitable manner.

I don't think that Lid was implying that agents have to go paragraph-by-paragraph, but there's a bunch of E&O plaintiff recoveries because they claimed agent misrepresentation. S'why I usually have insureds initial every page of their contract. Saves hassle in the future.

[SoonerInFla]

I have a few question for you insurance ****** *******s.

How can you possibly say flood waters from a hurricane are not directly caused by the windstorm said hurricane produces?

To carry it further. I've seen the results of Ivan and Katrina right up close as one came by my house and the other where I work. There are many structures that have just vanished. Did they get washed away? Did a tornado or extremely high winds remove these structures before flood waters were blown in? There are cases in which there is no way in hell an adjustor can answer these questions. In cases where a structure is still sitting in a flooded out area; Please help me to understand how you can prove these structures were'nt wind damaged before the flood set in?

[soonerboomer93]

I think that's a big part of why the lawsuits are going on. My understanding is that insurance companies are saying that any house that had standing water in it is considered flood damaged, not wind damaged and denying claims.

[Sooner_Bob]

I went through dozens of schools down there that had part of their roofs ripped off and got tons of water damage from rain getting in that way . . . sure it eventually became standing water, but was it the result of a flood or rain storm?

Depending on the location of the school I'm sure it was also damaged due to actual flood waters as well. How can "you" determine which damage is which?

[Okieflyer]

The Court also did not buy the homeowner's claim that the agent had misrepresented the terms of the policy.

WHAT!?:eek: An agent misrepresented!? And in this day and age when people are so trust worthy. How could the the court possibly buy that story.:rolleyes:

[Skysooner]

I just bought a house near the Arkansas River in south Jenks. I look over and less than 1/2 mile from my house and maybe 15'-20' in elevation is running water. I'm not in the 100 year flood plain per the Corps of Engineers, but I elected to buy a flood policy anyway from the government.

[TexasLidig8r]

Okay, I'm on vacation, but this post is so stupid, I had to respond.

Stop readin' this frickin' website, drink frozen drinks with umbrellas on 'em, make love with your wife.... Oh, Stooped iz as stuppid duz. ;)

First, Lid is a 'Horn, yes, but one I respect. He's solid politically.


Second, Lid and I are both folks with J.D.s. However, I think Lid's inner and outer lawyer is getting the best of him here. And, I mean in a big way. How is a judge saying that the policy will be enforced as written mean the insurance company is playing it "closer to the vest"?

Playin' Devil's Advocate a wee bit in the initial post. Now, the question is, did the insurance co. deny the ENTIRE claim initially... or did it segregate out damages caused by flood vs. wind damage? With the judge's decision, it would appear as if the insurance co. denied the entire claim. If so, and the homeowner was forced to sue on the contract, (at least in Texas), the homeowner is going to recover all of his/her attorney's fees.

A homeowners policy is not a rocket science manual. It lists perils covered, it lists exclusions. Windstorm, people, has been covered since they expanded from fire only coverage decades ago. There's no question about whether or not windstorm damage is covered. As sure as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, your homeowners policy has windstorm coverage.

Which raises the question.. did the influx of water originate from ground water.. or, was it infused into the house as a result of hurricane forced winds?

In the same vein, flood damage is explicitly excluded, and such has been upheld in even the screwiest of jurisdictions for years. I mean, it's a no-brainer.

In the same vein,... if a flood is caused by rising ground water, then the exclusion would apply. If however, a house is flooded as a result of a busted pipe under the house, then, is that type of flood damage covered?

All that is happening here is that plaintiffs attorney are out trying to squeeze any type of money they can for themselves from the hurricane tragedies of 2005. It's ridiculous. There's not a snowball's chance in hell of a judge making an insurance company cover flood damage in a homeowner's policy. A child prodigy will make a Badger-like space shuttle out of household items before flood damage is covered by a homeowner's policy.

http://www.xenafan.com/movies/bod/images/badger08.jpg

That analogy is just greatness.

P.S. - It's also well-settled law that insurance agents don't have to go page-by-page and read the policy to the homeowner. Courts have always ruled that people can't just buy a policy, not read it, file a claim for something explicitly excluded, then get away with suing the agent. I mean, come on Lid, you're killing me here, dude. You know better. If anything, the attorneys filing these stupid suits and wasting everyone's time and money should have their licenses pulled.

Now, I didn't check to see if the homeowner filed suit... of if the insurance company filed suit under the Declaratory Judgments Act. If the ins. co. filed suit first and the court interprets the contract its way, it would be entitled to recover its attorney's fees from the homeowners.


As Belva Lockwood (well known attorney from the 1800s) once said, "The glory of each generation is to make its own precedents."

Animal bite exemptions, intentional acts exemptions, floods due to rising ground water (but perhaps not pipes bursting, unless the pipe burst as a result of natural ground movement)....

Homeowner's policies do make for some interesting reading.

[Okla-homey]

About 2000 years ago J.C. pretty much gave the last word on all this...


Matthew 7:26 -- But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."