Katrina insurance suit moved to state court

[cal04]

A federal judge has sent back to Mississippi state court a lawsuit demanding that insurers pay flood damages to thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims, increasing the chances of a ruling against the companies

"It's a nice Christmas present," Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood said at a news conference on Wednesday.

Hood, who brought the suit on behalf of state residents 15 months ago, said that if insurers did not negotiate settlements by spring, he expected Congress, led by Mississippi Senator Trent Lott, to investigate the industry.

The lawsuit claims that the five insurers had refused to pay for damages from "storm surge," the 30-foot (10-meter) -high wall of water whipped up by Katrina's winds that destroyed property worth billions of dollars in August 2005.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061227/us_nm/insurance_lawsuit_dc_4

[Tommy_J]

1. Time to drop State Farm

Thanks for the reminder.

I'm not from N.O. but I don't want to do business with such a sleazy company.

[KamaAina]

3. Allstate's not any better

or as at least one NOLA blogger is putting it, "Somestates", now that they've announced they're redlining La.

[1monster]

2. This is one that really irks me. I pay nearly a thousand dollars extra

per year for hurricane insurance, but if one inch of water invades my home during a hurricane, my insurance will not pay up because it does not cover flooding. I'm told I need to buy flood insurance for another fifteen hundred dollars to be covered.

I believe that if I am paying the extra for hurricane damage, it should cover any hurricane caused damage including water damage whether it is caused by excees rain fall, by the Intracoastal waterway over flowing its banks, or the tidal creek going tsunami.

[stevekatz]

4. then

they'd just charge 2500 for hurricane insurance!

[harpboy_ak]

5. It's not what you believe, it's what the weasel words say

I believe that if I am paying the extra for hurricane damage, it should cover any hurricane caused damage including water damage whether it is caused by excees rain fall, by the Intracoastal waterway over flowing its banks, or the tidal creek going tsunami.

It's not what you believe that counts, it's what the weasel words in the policy mean when you get to court. Have you read your policy? I'll wager that 99% of insureds never read the policy until they need to file a claim.

[1monster]

6. Yes, I have read my policy. No, they will not cover damage caused by

rising waters of any kind.

I know that I am not covered. I believe for the extra amount I pay, I should be.