Katrina victims lose in appeals court

[Caladan 19]

What's sad is the people suing are pretty much the middle class of NOLA. The poor are really screwed (not that that's the insurance company's fault). But the responsible home owners DID have flood insurance, but the company refused to pay on the ground that the damage was caused by the levees, not the storm. And the law seems to be on the company's side, but I don't think the 'HAHA IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER STUPID POOR PEOPLE' is appropriate when the damage was caused a PUBLIC levee failing (hence the analogy with the bridge.)

[GaryC 7]

What's sad is the people suing are pretty much the middle class of NOLA. The poor are really screwed (not that that's the insurance company's fault). But the responsible home owners DID have flood insurance, but the company refused to pay on the ground that the damage was caused by the levees, not the storm. And the law seems to be on the company's side, but I don't think the 'HAHA IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER STUPID POOR PEOPLE' is appropriate when the damage was caused a PUBLIC levee failing (hence the analogy with the bridge.)

A class 5 hurricane is more dangerous than you can imagine. Not much made by man can stand up to it. People that live in NE know that it is just a matter of time before one hits them. And they know they are at or below sea level. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

At any rate, I knew that my flood insurance covered acts of God but not acts of man. I am no smarter than anyone else. It seems that the courts agree with me. It's the responsibility of the home owner to make sure he is covered not the responsibility of the insurance companies to give it free.

[Caladan 19]

The levees were underdesigned. We need to get the Dutch over here to fix it: their whole country is lowlands!

Right, but I think what the policy holders were arguing is that a category five hurricane is an act of God and should be covered under their policy because the hurricane caused the levees to fail. The insurance companies seem to have successfully argued that the levees failing is a separate event and not covered. Which to me seems a bit of a stretch, and certainly nothing to go 'ha ha' to the homeowner about.

[GaryC 7]

The levees were underdesigned. We need to get the Dutch over here to fix it: their whole country is lowlands!

Right, but I think what the policy holders were arguing is that a category five hurricane is an act of God and should be covered under their policy because the hurricane caused the levees to fail. The insurance companies seem to have successfully argued that the levees failing is a separate event and not covered. Which to me seems a bit of a stretch, and certainly nothing to go 'ha ha' to the homeowner about.

Thats twice you said that someone is happy about this. Just who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone happy about someone losing their home.

[Caladan 19]

There's a lot of blame being shifted onto the homeowners and calling them dependent on a nanny state which is really striking me as people taking joy in the fact that they lost their case. Or 'don't live on the coast if you can't afford it move in 30 miles.' People HAD insurance. The aftermath happened in such a way that the company was able to take advantage of a loophole, but that doesn't make the homeowner irresponsible.

If an earthquake had hit St. Louis, and your house survived the initial shock but caught fire because the city's infrastructure wasn't designed for an earthquake, and your policy said 'we'll give you damage for the windows that cracked' but not for the fire because that wasn't caused by the earthquake, but your fire insurance wouldn't cover it because wiring problems voided the policy, that wouldn't make you irresponsible.

Even if you think the case was decided correctly, as I do, it doesn't seem right to be calling people irresponsible and taking pleasure in it.

[Jenn! 918]

There's a lot of blame being shifted onto the homeowners and calling them dependent on a nanny state which is really striking me as people taking joy in the fact that they lost their case. Or 'don't live on the coast if you can't afford it move in 30 miles.' People HAD insurance. The aftermath happened in such a way that the company was able to take advantage of a loophole, but that doesn't make the homeowner irresponsible.

If an earthquake had hit St. Louis, and your house survived the initial shock but caught fire because the city's infrastructure wasn't designed for an earthquake, and your policy said 'we'll give you damage for the windows that cracked' but not for the fire because that wasn't caused by the earthquake, but your fire insurance wouldn't cover it because wiring problems voided the policy, that wouldn't make you irresponsible.

Even if you think the case was decided correctly, as I do, it doesn't seem right to be calling people irresponsible and taking pleasure in it.

The thing is, I don't see this as a loophole situation. The way I understand it, the insureds did not have flood coverage, simple as that. Not surprising since standard home insurance does not cover flood damage. The insureds are trying to claim that the flood damage should be covered in this circumstance because of the exisiting damage to the levees, but that is neither here nor there. Why should the insurers be liable for flood damage clearly excluded because the damage may have been someone else's fault?

If these people want to recover losses, they should be looking into litigation against whoever is at fault for the levees, not the insurance company who, IMO, clearly are not liable for the claims.

[Caladan 19]

From the earlier summary I read shortly after Katrina, jenn, they had 'wind and water' damage coverage as part of their hurricane coverage, and the company's been arguing that 'wind and water' didn't apply to the levee aftermath. I think that's unfortunately probably decided correctly, legally speaking, but it doesn't mean that they were irresponsible home owners.

[Jenn! 918]

From the earlier summary I read shortly after Katrina, jenn, they had 'wind and water' damage coverage as part of their hurricane coverage, and the company's been arguing that 'wind and water' didn't apply to the levee aftermath. I think that's unfortunately probably decided correctly, legally speaking, but it doesn't mean that they were irresponsible home owners.

No doubt is an unfortunate situation. I agree that they are not irresponsible homeowners, and they have done what any normal person would do, that is, go after their insurers. I also agree that the guidelines for determining what category a particular loss falls under are convoluted and difficult to understand for your average person. I work with the stuff all day, and it's confusing as heck to figure out whether this particular claim falls under wind vs. rain vs. thunderstorm etc. However, none of this negates the fact that it seems the law is on the side of the insurers this time. No one really expects an insurance company to say, "ok, well even though you weren't technically covered, we'll let this one slide.", right?

[GaryC 7]

Even if you think the case was decided correctly, as I do, it doesn't seem right to be calling people irresponsible and taking pleasure in it.

There you go again. Who is taking pleasure in someone losing their home? Are you saying I am? Please clarify your statement.

[Caladan 19]

Maybe I'm misreading you gary, but it sure seems self-congratulatory and full of schadenfreude to be going on about how responsible you were buying earthquake insurance and how all those people should just have moved in-land. (N.B. It's hard to move universities.) Apologies if that's not the case.

jenn, I don't expect the insurance companies to pay up but a lot of the Katrina nonsense just pisses me off generally since so many people's reaction seems to be blaming people for expecting infrastructure to hold.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From the earlier summary I read shortly after Katrina, jenn, they had 'wind and water' damage coverage as part of their hurricane coverage, and the company's been arguing that 'wind and water' didn't apply to the levee aftermath. I think that's unfortunately probably decided correctly, legally speaking, but it doesn't mean that they were irresponsible home owners.

No doubt is an unfortunate situation. I agree that they are not irresponsible homeowners, and they have done what any normal person would do, that is, go after their insurers. I also agree that the guidelines for determining what category a particular loss falls under are convoluted and difficult to understand for your average person. I work with the stuff all day, and it's confusing as heck to figure out whether this particular claim falls under wind vs. rain vs. thunderstorm etc. However, none of this negates the fact that it seems the law is on the side of the insurers this time. No one really expects an insurance company to say, "ok, well even though you weren't technically covered, we'll let this one slide.", right?

So in other words - a person might have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of the terms of their home insurance policy, but could still find themselves without coverage in certain situations that are deemed outside of the normal scope of a particular 'disaster' provision. In other words - I could think I have full coverage, when in reality I really don't - because the determination of whether a particular incident is covered or not is made subjectively and ultimately I have no way of telling whether or not I really do have full coverage.

Surely a false sense of security?

[GaryC 7]

Maybe I'm misreading you gary, but it sure seems self-congratulatory and full of schadenfreude to be going on about how responsible you were buying earthquake insurance and how all those people should just have moved in-land. (N.B. It's hard to move universities.) Apologies if that's not the case.

jenn, I don't expect the insurance companies to pay up but a lot of the Katrina nonsense just pisses me off generally since so many people's reaction seems to be blaming people for expecting infrastructure to hold.

There is no glee for me when someone suffers for anything. I am glad to see that the courts made the correct decision when it came to the claims. People should and must take responsibility for themselves and their property.

To your point to Jenn, Anything made by man can be destroyed by nature. At some point everything fails. A class 5 hurricane is something that should be expected in NE at some point. You say we should have the Dutch teach us about dikes? I bet their dikes wouldn't hold up to a monster like Katrina. Sh!t happens, you need to be prepared for it.

[Jenn! 918]

From the earlier summary I read shortly after Katrina, jenn, they had 'wind and water' damage coverage as part of their hurricane coverage, and the company's been arguing that 'wind and water' didn't apply to the levee aftermath. I think that's unfortunately probably decided correctly, legally speaking, but it doesn't mean that they were irresponsible home owners.

No doubt is an unfortunate situation. I agree that they are not irresponsible homeowners, and they have done what any normal person would do, that is, go after their insurers. I also agree that the guidelines for determining what category a particular loss falls under are convoluted and difficult to understand for your average person. I work with the stuff all day, and it's confusing as heck to figure out whether this particular claim falls under wind vs. rain vs. thunderstorm etc. However, none of this negates the fact that it seems the law is on the side of the insurers this time. No one really expects an insurance company to say, "ok, well even though you weren't technically covered, we'll let this one slide.", right?

So in other words - a person might have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of the terms of their home insurance policy, but could still find themselves without coverage in certain situations that are deemed outside of the normal scope of a particular 'disaster' provision. In other words - I could think I have full coverage, when in reality I really don't - because the determination of whether a particular incident is covered or not is made subjectively and ultimately I have no way of telling whether or not I really do have full coverage.

Surely a false sense of security?

I guess you could say that.

With my knowledge of insurance, I have anything but a sense of security when it comes to my own coverage. There's really no such thing as full coverage.

But you have to realize that without all of the exclusions, premiums would be through the roof. Personally, I'm willing to take my chances paying something affordable and getting the best coverage I can for my money.

[Jenn! 918]

To your point to Jenn, Anything made by man can be destroyed by nature. At some point everything fails. A class 5 hurricane is something that should be expected in NE at some point. You say we should have the Dutch teach us about dikes? I bet their dikes wouldn't hold up to a monster like Katrina. Sh!t happens, you need to be prepared for it.

Sorry, Gary, I don't understand what you mean. I didn't say anything about the Dutch.

[GaryC 7]

To your point to Jenn, Anything made by man can be destroyed by nature. At some point everything fails. A class 5 hurricane is something that should be expected in NE at some point. You say we should have the Dutch teach us about dikes? I bet their dikes wouldn't hold up to a monster like Katrina. Sh!t happens, you need to be prepared for it.

Sorry, Gary, I don't understand what you mean. I didn't say anything about the Dutch.

I was replying to Caladan, not you. She said "jenn, I don't expect the insurance companies to pay up but a lot of the Katrina nonsense just pisses me off generally since so many people's reaction seems to be blaming people for expecting infrastructure to hold."

That is what I was replying to.