Miss. Couple Sues Insurers on Storm Losses

[NVMojo]

October 4, 2005

PASCAGOULA, Miss. (AP) - A couple sued insurers on Tuesday, saying the companies refused to pay for the damage to their home caused by Hurricane Katrina.

The lawsuit was filed in Jackson County Chancery Court on behalf of Paul Leonard, a Pascagoula police officer, and his wife, Julie, by Richard Scruggs, a lawyer known for extracting huge settlements from tobacco and asbestos manufacturers.

The lawsuit follows one filed in September by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood.

The question in both cases is were homes and businesses in Katrina's path battered by the hurricane's 145 mph winds or a storm surge that sent Gulf waters up to 30 feet high rushing more than a mile inland, well beyond designated flood zones?

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/invest-corp/2005/oct/04/100402966.html

[ramapo]

1. Can there be a class action suit?

My cousin lives in New Orleans and is waiting to hear from her insurance company. She says the companies are pulling all kinds of crap to get out of paying.

[NVMojo]

2. maybe they should contact this couple?? Or their attorney??

Wonder if Edwards is still practicing??

[Shakespeare]

3. I suspect that's ultimately what will happen.

Look for the attorneys on the various cases to move to consolidate the cases, then once that's accomplished, file a motion for class certification. It'll probably also be moved from state to federal court.

[Sgent]

4. Mississippi

doesn't have class action rules (to the good of the plantiff), so its handled a little differently.

This suit is in MS, so an LA couple wouldn't be eligible for help.

That being said, definately contact Richard Scruggs office in Oxford, MS if you are interested in some sort of suit. He's one of the pre-eminent class action attorneys in the country, and was the leader of the tobacco litigation. His house (mansion) and office in Pascagola was destroyed by Katrina, and he has vowed to take on insurance companies to fix many of the problems. His lawfirm is one of the few that has the financial ability to force sustained litigation if needed.

[Shakespeare]

6. I look for the cases to be consolidated and moved to federal court.

In fact, I'll be stunned if that doesn't happen. Soon after, expect a motion for class cert.

[Sgent]

8. I don't see how

that will happen with MS plantiffs and MS admitted insurers.

There is a reason much of the drug litigation was performed in MS -- and it never got removed against the objections of pharma.

[Shakespeare]

9. That doesn't preclude a move to federal court.

Which drug litigation are you referring to? Did either side attempt to get it moved to federal court?

[SoCalDem]

5. The problem is that insurers have been allowed to

break apart the coverage for a single event.. The wind of the hurricane is covered, but the surge of the hurricane is not.. That's RIDICULOUS.. That's like saying the floor is covered in a fire, but NOT the ceiling, because the fire traveled up the drapes..

Without the hurricane, there would have been NO SURGE..


Starting in about 1970, the insurers should have started covering people/builders who built a certain distance from the coast.. If all the "on the beachers" were unable to get ANY insurance, there would have been fewer developments so close to the beach, and way less loss of life and billions of storm damage and sand replenishment..

It's time to let the coast be the coast..

It's unconsionable to charge people for insurance that they cannot use..and even worse to continue to build "sandcastles"..

[lynne]

10. Suggest everyone read their own homeowners policies -

- as, in most states, hurricanes are not specifically listed in the policy at all. The individual perils that the policy covers are listed as fire, theft, vandalism, lightening, wind, falling objects, etc.

Flood, wind-driven rain and water backup from sewers and drains are all listed as excluded. Coverage for those damages can be "bought back" in the case of water back up from sewers and drains - or can be purchased via a flood insurance policy.

The heart of the modern homeowners policy is the original Basic Fire Policy which covered nothing more than fire and lightening for the most part. It was modernized in the 1960's (I believe) into the homeowners policy we know today.

No flood or water damage was provided then and no flood or water damage is provided now.

[SoCalDem]

11. That is true, but it is "sold" to the average homeowner

as an all encomapssing "security blanket".. and offered at actually cheaper rates than should be charged, so that developers can get away with developing in areas they should NEVER be allowed to develop.. then they all cross their fingers and hope that nothing happens.. and usually thisgs do NOT happen..

We have had homeowners' policies since 1977 and have NEVER filed a claim for ANYTHING..but i would be willing to bet that if we ever did, there would be an "exclusion" in there that would prevent paying for it :shrug:

[NVMojo]

7. look what the SEC just did today ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1826467