Should insurance companies honor policies for damage caused by wind driven water?

On the local talk radio station here in Jackson, there was a discussion on this the other morning. They had some insurance guy on who said the state government had asked insurance companies to be loose in their interpretation of wind driven water. He said they were asked to only write it up as flooding if it were a clear case of flooding. From what he was saying, the insurance companies were pretty agreeable at that time. Of course I am sure this is on the condition the government provides some sort of bailout for them. Sorry, don't remember the guy's name who was on and don't have a link, but I think when it is all said and done, I think some sort of deal will be struck outside the courtroom.

I don't know if you have access to SupertalkMS where you are, but if you do, you might want to listen 6:00 am - 9:00. They bring in state-level officials and have had some pretty good discussion on the issue; you might be able to find out something there. Some mornings it's crap, others it's pretty informative. Supposedly you can listen via the web at the link below.

As for the state's lawsuit, I wouldn't buy into that just yet. Mostly it's AG Jim Hood trying to position himself for the governor's office. He's attempting to use Katrina in a similar fashion Mike Moore used the tobacco lawsuits.



http://news.mywebpal.com/index.cfm?pnpid=576

 

Fanatic, I'm not trying to kick anyone while they're down. I'm simply stating my opinion, which as you noted, you asked for. Look at the poll results thus far and you'll see I'm not exactly alone in this opinion. I do think it's unfortunate that you're in the situation you're in. I really do. I stand by my opinion on reading the contract though.

I thought SabanFan's post made sense about flooding v. wind driven water, in that you could probably tell by the point of entry of the water. I don't know for sure (obviously) but that made sense to me.

 

That's straight. You're entitled to your opinion, and I have no problem with you saying that I should've read the contract closer etc etc. But I took offense because you seemed to insinuate that I was asking for a handout and that I was too dumb and lazy to know what I was getting into. Whether you feel this way or not, you could've made your point without expressing that. There's a whole lot of people (lawyers - who should've absolutely known better - included) that are in the same boat. Whether or not my assessment is correct, that's how it seemed and I felt that was a bit much; given all the stress I'm already under.

Regardless of the poll results so far (which I admit are a little surprising to me) I still like my chances in court if it even makes it that far. If it's not explicitly explained in the policy, the policy holder normally gets the benefit of the doubt. If I lose, so be it. I'll have no choice but to file bankruptcy and chalk it up as a lesson learned. I would despise having to do that, but there's no way I can cover $50,000 in damages on a $210,000 mortgage if my insurance or the government fails to help.

In retorspect, I think I mis-worded my poll question. Instead of trying to gauge liability, I guess I should've asked for an opinion on whether people feel a tidal surge is should be considered wind damage or flood damage. No surprise here, but my feeling is, no wind, no water, so it's wind-related damage.

 

You're probably right, but in addition to costing me money, it will probably cost them more than the 50k I'm claiming. Settling or paying the claim seems like the most cost effective thing to do.

At this point, I don't care who pays for it as long as it gets repaired. That's an interesting strategy about the flood-plain mapping because I'm definately not in a legally designated flood zone.

 

That's true. Any ambiguity in the policy will be resolved in favor of the policy holder. I'm confused about your supplemental policy. If it was meant to cover what the primary didn't cover, then there should be specific language to define exactly what is covered. If it was intended to be an excess policy then they both cover the same perils, just one kicks in after the other is exhausted. If they both cover the same thing (not in an excess capacity) then both would owe on a co-insurance basis. If they both exclude flooding and it's determined that you damages are flood related, you may be out of luck.