Supreme Court rejects Katrina victims' flood insurance case

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

Associated Press - February 19, 2008 10:33 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has refused to offer help to Hurricane Katrina victims who want their insurance companies to pay for flood damage to their homes and businesses.

The justices on Tuesday rejected appeals from Xavier University and 68 other individuals and businesses seeking to allow their lawsuits against the insurers to go forward.



Read more: http://wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=7892249

[freethought]

1. I hate to say it but

Isn't that par-for-the-course in the insurance industry? They'll insure against a whole bunch of potential disasters EXCEPT for flooding. Last I recall, the only place you could get flood insurance was through the federal government.

I'm not surprised by this decision.

[flamin lib]

4. There are two issues here: Falling vs rising water and water damage

not an act of God.

Rising water damage is only covered by federal insurance which is only available in flood zones. Falling water is a different matter and should be covered by all homeowners policies. Many of the Katrina claims were denied because the water damage was classified as wind driven. Pretty fine parsing of words if you ask me.

The case is question was about rising water damage caused by the failing levies, damage caused by the failure man. If your car is hit by an uninsured motorist the comprehensive coverage will pay for it. If the water damage was caused by human failure shouldn't the same principal hold true?

[The Croquist]

13. In case you never noticed New Orleans is below sea level

The insurance companies specifically excluded flooding because it was too risky (likely) an event. You can argue that some individuals were suckered but I'm willing to bet that they signed agreements without reading them. Xavier University was one of the plaintiffs. Are you telling me that nobody on their staff understood the agreement?

If the insurance companies had written the contracts to include flooding they would either have charged a phenomenal amount more or simply not offered it.

The problem is that New Orleans is below sea level and is SINKING. Anybody that rebuilds there deserves what they get. I'm sorry for sounding cold blooded but the moment we built levees there we doomed the city. It's build on a mud flat that needs to be flooded and have silt deposited on it to prevent it's sinking. The levees prevent that.

[primavera]

14. So is most of the Netherlands

But that doesn't prevent them from having a safe country in which to live and build homes.

[Benhurst]

2. If you can't trust the United States Supreme Court, who can you trust?

I'm so shocked.

[OKthatsIT]

15. Supremes rejected WIRE TAPPING cases via Phone Co.s

They ARENT the PEOPLES COURT NO MORE. They only side with corporations now. You got a problem wit dat? TOO BAD.

[zanne]

3. This Supreme Court is full of right-wing corporate lackeys. nt

[flashl]

5. Supremes: business 2, average joe 0

Recently the supremes ruled against investors seeking relief from subprime scams.

[pacalo]

6. After what they did in 2000, I'm not surprised the Supreme Court sides with the insurance companies.

It's disgusting. The fact is, though, that homeowners/business owners are required to have flood insurance before the damage happens. It's a Catch-22 situation for homeowners; they're screwed even if they are covered, & I'll bet those homeowners/business owners are having to pay a lot extra on their premiums to cover the claims that were covered. My home didn't have any flooding, but we received $4,000 to replace our wind-damaged roof & fence; we paid $2,000 of our own money to meet the total cost. Since then, our insurance was raised $300 a month, or $3,600 a year. The insurance company is getting its money back four-fold from us alone.

[ladjf]

7. The criminality never ends. It's depressing.

[smoogatz]

8. Message to Americans: you're on your own, suckas!

But you have to buy insurance anyway.

[Ian David]

9. Well, one bright spot in all this is that maybe Trent Lott got fucked, too. n/t

[tired]

10. I doubt it....

[xxqqqzme]

11. If only that were true

but highly unlikely. There is bound to be a contractor out there 'donating' to a campaign for helmet hair..

[sarcasmo]

12. I ask the Supreme Court, do we really need Insurance? Since you say Insurance companies need not pay

[Doctor_J]

16. It's amazing how much damage the Reid/Leahy Court has done

and we still have 10 months to go. Impeachment of judges and justices should begin the say after Obama takes office.