Court rules AGAINST Katrina homeowners

[babylonsister]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070802/ap_on_re_us/katrina_insurance;_ylt=Amp6O7lPsjZDXX7_ALze1UWs0NUE

Court rules against Katrina homeowners

11 minutes ago

NEW ORLEANS - A federal appeals court ruled Thursday against Hurricane Katrina victims who argued their insurance policies should have covered flood damage caused by levee breaches that flooded 80 percent of New Orleans during the 2005 storm.

The case could affect thousands of rebuilding residents and business owners in Louisiana. An insurance expert had said a ruling against the industry could have cost insurers $1 billion.

"This event was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written," Judge Carolyn King wrote for a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result, she said the panel found those who filed the suit "are not entitled to recover under their policies."

[shance]

1. All part of the plan.

n/t

[Behind the Aegis]

2. And yet another strike against the recovery of New Orleans...

PATHETIC!

[seriousstan]

19. No it is a simple ruling involving unambiguous language. They refused flood insurance.

the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God _ such as excessive rainfall _ and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina's landfall.

[The Doctor.]

27. A tool the insurance companies use DELIBERATELY...

They express the language clearly to anyone who's an attorney.

They depend on people not understanding that a flood is only a flood if there are no man-made mechanisms involved. Most people just ask 'am I covered in a case of flood?' and they're told 'yes' and sign the policy. They see that a hurricane is responsible for all the damage and naturally believe they are covered.

If this finding says that it was the inadequacy of the levees that is responsible, then whoever was responsible for maintaining those levees should be held liable.

But guess what will happen when they bring that case?

The judge will rule that the state is not liable because the hurricane was an 'act of God'.

These people are fucked and that's BULLSHIT.

[seriousstan]

29. BULLSHIT. The language was that NO FLOOD WAS COVERED!

GOD's fault, man's fault or natures fault. Read the ruling and educate yourself.

[The Doctor.]

31. Either way, that's not the point.

No one will be held accountable. That's the point.

But I guess they all got what they deserved. After all, they should have 'educated themselves'. :eyes:

[EFerrari]

3. I wonder how much that cost. n/t

[Xithras]

4. Flood insurance has always been a separate thing.

My property abuts a river, so I have flood insurance. My standard homeowners policy states in big block letters that it doesn't cover flood damage. The flood coverage is a separate policy amendment that I pay a substantial extra amount of money for.

While I do feel for these homeowners, common sense says that you can't expect flood coverage if you don't have flood insurance. There's a small exception in the case of wind-driven water, but that wasn't the case in NO.

[Behind the Aegis]

12. True about flood insurance.

While it is true that flood insurance is a separate thing, the people suing in this case were doing so because the levees broke not because Katrina flooded their homes. In this case, I see a difference. The vast majority of flooding in New Orleans wasn't because of Katrina, but rather a man-made structure failed in its duties. So, if the insurance companies are "let off the hook," then I feel the Katrina victims should sue the state and federal governments for neglect and dereliction of duty which caused property damage and loss of life.

[intheflow]

18. That's a prefect synopsis of what happened.

This was not an act of God (as in a flood), but an act of man (levee maintenance negligence). The insurance companies should be made to pay. I hope they appeal and win.

[Trillo]

23. Now that's some "triangulation"! n/t

[RB TexLa]

5. I know people that didn't even bother filing a claim

[Xithras]

8. Did they have flood coverage?

Any insurance company that denies a flood claim to someone with flood insurance WILL be forced to pay out...either willingly or through the courts with damages.

[Dr.Phool]

13. The insurance companies only write the policies for FEMA.

It's shitty coverage, and very expensive. But my bank requires it because I'm located in a "AE" zone, or a 100 year flood zone.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. And well it should, since...

homeowners policies exclude flood, war and some other stuff, and pretty much always have.

So, ummm, just because everyone hates insurance companies and Katrina was a huge loss, are we supposed to turn insurance contracts upside down and just pay people whether or not they're covered?

Yeah, I know flood insurance costs a bundle and a lot of people couldn't afford it, but that doesn't mean the insurance comapanies should pick up the tab just because they're there.

[tritsofme]

7. Seems to be more of a failure of the federal government

to aid its citizens in need, than a problem of the insurance companies.

Granted I don't know a lot of the background regarding this case, but if the policies excluded such damage, I see no reason why they should be obligated pay out on these policies.

[jobycom]

30. It's a tricky question, I think. Insurance policies shouldn't be treated as straightforward contract

Insurance is mandated for property owners in most circumstances, which means that an insurance policy isn't exactly a voluntary contract. The degree and type of protection is voluntary, but since property owners are required to pay at least some fee to an insurance company, the insurance company should have some obligation to provide a general level of protection. There are regulations controlling minimum standards for insurance companies, of course, but there is a basic assumption between insured and insurers that insurance will generally protect that property.

Concerning the specifics of the policy, a policy-holder is advised by the federal, state, and local governments, as well as by the insurance company representatives, as to what insurance they should purchase, and what they are required to purchase, and what they can reasonably exclude.

In the case of flood insurance, a person is usually required to buy flood insurance in order to get a mortgage in a region designated as a flood plain. If the person owns a house outright, they are at least advised to get it, and warned of the flood dangers. The designation of a flood plain, at least as I understand it, comes from some level or other of government, ultimately dependent on designations and rules set up by the federal government.

So, those without flood insurance but with other property insurance in most cases were required to purchase some insurance, and were advised that they did not need flood insurance.

They were, in short, ordered to pay money to the insurance company for property protection, thus preventing them from saving the money for their own protection plan, but were told that they were safe from flood damage because of the government flood controls.

Then these policy-holders lost their insured houses because of a failure of a flood control system managed by the people who told them they didn't need flood insurance, and all the money they were required to dump into the pockets of insurance company execs was just thrown away, rather than saved for when they needed it.

The victims here are the policy holders, who were knocked out by a one-two punch from the government and the insurance companies. All the government-mandated funds that were paid to the insurance companies are gone (into very healthy bank accounts, no doubt), and everyone is denying responsibility.

The best solution would be for the governments (city, state, and federal) to pay for the damages caused by their failures, and for the governments to file on their own insurance policies. That way, the insurance companies pay, the government pays, and things get rebuilt.

It all ultimately comes from the same place, and this is the part that Republicans just aren't smart enough to grasp. Whether the insurance companies pay to rebuild NOLA, or the government does, or the individual does, the money all comes out of the pockets of every single American. Insurance rates or taxes will go up, or the income of everyone will go down as the economy remains depressed from the loss of such a large chunk of it. Nobody gets a free ride out of this. The only real question is, do we pay to help people get their lives back in order, and do we pay by allowing all of our lives to be worth a little less--while setting a precedent for when it happens to the rest of us?

But Republicans don't think like that. They probably can't, or else they'd already be Democrats.

[Xipe Totec]

9. Sad situation, but the judge did the right thing

flood insurance is always covered by a national flood insurance policy that's separate from regular homeowners insurance and whose cost is based on flood risk. If you live in a flood prone area, the rates are higher.

[Harry Monroe]

24. You are absolutely right...

...I have flood insurance. It is a separate entity from regular homeowners insurance. Although I do not live in a flood prone area, my yard does flood sometimes and it will get close to my back door. It is just extra peace of mind for me, but I lived in NOLA until my 30's and anyone who doesn't have flood insurance there, you are courting disaster. In many areas of the city it was supposed to be mandatory, depending on what flood zone you lived in. Unfortunately, many in that city could not afford coverage.

BTW, the national flood insurance policy program is underwritten by...(wait for it, drumroll).....FEMA!!! Yes, FEMA, those incompetent cretins who are doing such a "heck of a job".

[daa]

28. Not sad

if you do not buy flood insurance, then you are NOT covered for a flood. A levy breaking is a FLOOD, not wind damage, which is covered by your insurance. Insurance is not a lottery for people that decline coverage.

When I got a mortgage in Florida the survey had to include the flood plain I was in, which would have determined whether I needed flood insurance to get a mortgage.

Its like the nightly news, oh an apartment burned down and now 12 families don't have a place to stay tonight. My insurance pays for me a place to stay, why don't they have any insurance?

[fasttense]

10. Wasn't there a case where a woman

called her insurance company to ensure she was covered for flood damage and they told her yes? But when she went to file, they told her it was not covered. She had names and dates of people at the insurance company who told her she was covered. I wonder if that was a separate lawsuit?

[babylonsister]

16. I do recall cases during Katrina where insurance companies refused to pay

even though the homes in question were NOT in predesignated flood plains that required additional insurance. :mad: I don't know whatever happened to those.

[porphyrian]

11. I guess if it looks like your place may flood, you should burn it to the ground.

Then, it'll be covered by insurance (assuming you aren't busted for arson).

Can we fucking impeach somebody yet?

[lies and propaganda]

14. IMPEACH BUSH

wasnt Katrina enough? Do we even need to debate it?

[Behind the Aegis]

15. I think we should make Bush, his administration, and the Congress...

...live in FEMA trailers for a month! Let them get a taste of the "high life" the good people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are getting TWO FUCKING YEARS after the storm!

[intheflow]

20. I think they should live in FEMA trailers for a year and get paid minimum wage.

Without medical insurance, without food stamps. How would they handle their kids constant nosebleeds and high asthma rates? I'm sure none of the people in Congress could handle the stress of traying to keep the family healthy, fed and clothed while making so little and living in such tight, toxic quarters.

[lies and propaganda]

33. i suggest we keep them warm at night

with the loveliest of smallpox blankets... aint we just the best hosts?!

[Joe Fields]

17. A huge mountain of salt, just rubbed into an open and festering wound.

What an abomination...

[Bitwit1234]

21. Why do you think bush and the former republican congress was hell bent

on packing the courts. It wasn't just for fun you know.

[Harry Monroe]

25. The judge in question, Carolyn King, was appointed by Carter in 1979

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1963

She did practice law in Houston from 1962-1979, however. Hmmmm.....

[KamaAina]

22. What a surprise. An appeals court rules in favor of Big Business.

This is classic: A lower court awards the little guys a billion or so, accompanied by big, splashy headlines -- then the big guys appeal and win. They never have to pay a red cent. :grr:

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Damn activist judges! Of course, the insurance companies win again. WHY PAY FOR INSURANCE THEN?

If I were a citizen of NOLA, I'd never spend another damn penny on Homeowners insurance!!! SCREW THEM! Tell them to shove their freakin' insurance where the sun doesn't shine.

[Supersedeas]

32. sleep well Judge Carol King, wish their was a policy regular American could sleep well on

Once again, Joe Six-pack is excluded.