Breaking: Insurers are getting sued by MS for refusing to pay damages

[cynatnite]

Just heard it on MSNBC

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. But Trent and Haley

are still grinning ear to ear.

[aquart]

2. Sue their pants off.

And then take their naked balls.

[spuddonna]

8. LMAO Thank you...

May I add the following?

Sue their pants off, then take their naked balls, and kick them in the ass!

[Selatius]

3. Aren't there insurance companies that are NON-PROFIT???

[donco6]

9. I don't know of any.

There are insurance pools that municipalities form to self-insure, but they all have to have added layers for excess coverage - like these disaster situations.

[LSparkle]

4. Did they say why insurers aren't paying?

I'd believ that more in N.O. than MS. (In N.O., the levees weren't maintained and I'm just waiting for the insurers to use civic/state/federal negligence as an excuse not to pay.)

[fooj]

5. No. Mississippi!

Won't cover "flood damage"...they are telling them their damage was caused by flood!

[LSparkle]

7. OMG, that is a HUGE stretch ...

N.O. was flooded but it was hurricane damage in MS obviously. Are they splitting hairs and saying it was the "storm SURGE" that caused it? Which chickenshit insurance companies are these?

Yep, this is the "American way" all right.

[RamboLiberal]

24. Name a lot of the biggies and they're probably on the list

Hood names in the lawsuit Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Co., United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/12658408.htm

Oh and lookie, lookie, good old Haley is backing the insurance companies over his citizens. Isn't that special? Think the red staters there will finally get tired of the kool-aid? Also FEMA's been real slow getting to these folks too.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/12656093.htm

Gov. Haley Barbour said Friday he preferred negotiation over litigation to help Hurricane Katrina homeowners who lacked flood insurance, saying a lawsuit by the state attorney general to force insurers to pay those claims could drive insurance companies from Mississippi.

"We expect that there will be some people who are not covered," the GOP governor said one day after Democratic Attorney General Jim Hood sued major insurers on behalf of Mississippians whose homes were destroyed by water instead of wind.

Hood's lawsuit contends a standard homeowner's policy should cover hurricane damage, whether the loss is from wind or wind-driven water, a storm surge. Outraged insurance companies said homeowners should have bought additional flood protection. Hood estimated the storm surge damage could reach $2 billion to $4 billion.

Referring to the attorney general's action, Barbour told a news conference: "That's the attorney general's job and I try to do my job."

I hope Howard Dean gets some good grassroots Dems to run against Haley's gang next year.

[me b zola]

10. It seems as though that argument by the insurance co's should b challenged

The storm surge was very much a part of the storm. Unless the policy was specifically written for wind damage alone, I don't know how they can possibly be excused from their obligation to the contract(s).

[fooj]

16. I understand that the GOP is working to pass a bill

that won't allow hurricane victims to sue. I'm almost sure that's what I read.

Peace.

[me b zola]

22. Funny (or not so much)

Wasn't dick's first public statement or mention from the press how he was looking into the insurance related to the storm? I knew when I saw it that his concern was to relieve the insurance co's of responsibility, but if a person weren't aware of the evil of dick then they might glean from the story that cheney was trying to make sure that they paid the victims.

[Heddi]

6. They didn't say why

but I've read in recent days that the insurance companies are claiming that WIND was not the sole cause of damage, and that more damage was caused by RISING WATER (re: floods), and so if you didn't have flood insurance, they're not going to pay for water damage (even if your roof blew off and the rain soaked your house).

Could insurance companies be ANY more bastardly? I'd say no, but then again, I said "no" after Hurricane Hugo and was proven wrong then.

They did the same thing in Hugo--said that floods & rising waters caused damage, not wind. Even if your house was blown down (which many were), the fact that flood waters came into the area nullified the wind-damage claim and forced people w/o flood insurance to take MAJOR losses on their houses. The insurance companies were basically like "So what if the wind knocked your house down and blew away your roof---if there hadn't been a storm-surge (flood), we would have completely covered the loss of your house. HOWEVER---there was a storm surge, and even if that wasn't the reason your house was destroyed, we're not going to cover your losses b/c you don't have flood insurance"

I
hate
insurance
companies

[spuddonna]

11. Hubby and I moved to NW...

Used to live on east coast... Found out about the earthquakes here.

So I ask the insurance agent, "It says here that if there's damage from a tree falling on the house it's covered."

Agent:"Yes, that's right."

Me:"Well, what if that tree falls because of an earthquake?"

Agent:"Then it's not covered... But we have a great deal on our earthquake additional coverage!"

sigh...

[Selatius]

14. Gotta turn a profit. That's why they exist to begin with

[madfloridian]

12. They are doing the same thing here in Florida.

I am not sure if it is just confined to the coastal areas. I talked to my agent, was told I only need one policy. Those near the coast need 3 policies, wind, flood, and just regular damage.

They have no intention of paying for flooded homes, IMHO

[Selatius]

13. Look, insurance companies exist to make a profit

Every time somebody files a claim, they lose money when it's paid out. It cuts into the bottom-line, so they really don't want to pay any more than what the contract they wrote requires them to pay. The primary reason insurance companies exist is to turn a profit for the owners/investors, to capitalize on the situation.

This isn't charity. This isn't good will. This is business. They have no more responsibility to you than what is needed to make a profit for their owners.

[TahitiNut]

15. They're also a big foot in the stock market. What happens when they sell?

When they liquidate stock holdings in order to pay off claims, it creates a 'downward pressure' on the stock market (a favorite of the have's and the have-more's) causing stock prices to drop.

Guess who doesn't want them to sell?

Guess who wants to create an 'upward pressure' by putting another Big Foot in the stock market? (Clue: Social Security)

[madfloridian]

18. OMG...do not make me yell at you.

If you had heard the interviews about this tonight, you would be outraged instead of lobbying for insurance companies. That guy from MS who is fighting for the people there has their number, says they are trying to make folks feel sorry.

Lobbying insurance when people pay them loads of money is a sin....they just pass it on to us anyway. When State Farm lost a load of money from Enron....they just raised our rates.

The water that flooded their homes on the coast was caused by a hurricane...they had separate hurricane insurance. Do not defend the indefensible.

[Selatius]

19. Wow, you totally missed the point of my post

By pointing out the fact that these insurance companies providing service is SUBORDINATE to turning a damn PROFIT, I was hoping on showing everybody reading my post that to them, you're just a fucking number on a spreadsheet. They only care about you as much as it is deemed profitable; that's it, not a penny more. FYI, I was directly struck by Katrina. Unless you think living one town east of what used to be Biloxi, Mississippi means I would lobby for those corporatist sacks of shit, you've got another thing coming.

[madfloridian]

21. I understand part of your point.

But the three hurricanes that hit us last year showed what they are up to as well.

Many people did not get paid as they should have. They did call it flood if it came in through leaky roofs. Something has to actually break off or form a hole before they call it hurricane damage, even though the rain is blowing as hard as the wind.

They are refusing to pay for homes hit by the coastal flooding. They can not be allowed to get away with that.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

17. What damage did MicroSoft suffer?

[Digit]

20. You can't buy flood insurance unless you live in a flood plain.

My heart goes out to all of these people who have lost everything.

[Silverhair]

23. More details on that:

They aren't "refusing". They are doing something that I consider to be worse. They are tricking less educated people into signing away their claims. The companies offer them $3,000 if they will say that the damge to their home was from water instead of wind, and sign a form to that effect. Most homeowners policies don't cover flood damage.

In some cases, where the damage is from the storm surge, then the company will refuse to pay. Policies only cover the things that they list as coverage, and nothing else. If you are covered against fire, windstorm, hail, flood, and a meteor hits your house - you are out of luck. Nothing in the policy about rocks from space.

So the people who didn't have flood coverage and had homes destroyed by storm surge will not be paid.