Mr. Scruggs, a wealthy plaintiffs' lawyer who played a leading role in wrenching a $250 billion settlement from the tobacco industry a few years back, is furious about the hurricane - not simply that it happened, but that insurance companies might escape what he sees as their responsibility for a huge portion of the losses from the storm, those resulting from flooding.
The insurers say homeowners' policies cover wind and rain damage, but do not cover flood damage caused by hurricanes or anything else. A federal program provides up to $250,000 in flood insurance, but most people do not have that coverage.
"I'm not going to sit still for this," said Mr. Scruggs, who grew up in Pascagoula and has practiced law here for decades. "I'm going to bring every organizational and legal skill I possess to make these guys do the right thing under their policies."
At stake is a potential $15 billion worth of insurance payments. That explains why the insurance companies, which have never been successfully challenged on the "wind vs. water" issue, are equally adamant.
They have contract law in their favor, they say. Their longstanding practice of not covering flood losses resulted years ago in a federal program being specifically created to provide such coverage. Still, they worry about going to court in Mississippi, which has a reputation for being tough on corporate defendants despite recent changes in the state's legal system.
At the very least, Mr. Scruggs contended that the extent of coverage is ambiguous and that courts have ruled that it is the responsibility of the writer of the policy - the insurance company - to make the provisions clear.
Much of the damage, he said, came from storm surge, which he said was gulf water driven inland by the wind. If the insurers wanted to exclude coverage for storm surge "they certainly know how to do it," he said. "And that term does not appear."
---edit---
Jim Hood, the attorney general of Mississippi, filed a civil lawsuit in a state court last Thursday to force the insurers to pay for storm surge losses. "I'm not going to allow insurance companies to bankrupt the entire Gulf Coast by using the fine print and saying that people should have known that they didn't have coverage for water damage," he said.
-----severely edited to to space limitations---
Fred Levin, a Pensacola consumer lawyer said that that any lawsuit by Mr. Scruggs could hinge on whether insurance agents fully explained to homeowners that their hurricane coverage applied only to wind and rain.
"You go to the agent and tell him you want full coverage," Mr. Levin said, "and he tells you, 'Yes, you've got full coverage.' I think that's the best claim they've got."
Ah yes - "Justified Reliance"
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
