Katrina Slab Case Testimony Starts With Tears
Jan 9, 2007 07:44 PM CST
Emotions and contradictions marked the first day of testimony in the Hurricane Katrina slab case. Norman and Genevieve Broussard are suing State Farm Insurance in federal court for denying the claim on the Biloxi home. State Farm contends water destroyed the house, which was not covered in the policy.
In opening arguments, the Broussards' attorney Bill Walker told the jury he intended to prove that State Farm breached its contract, and after Katrina the company came up with its wind/water protocol so it could deny slab claims.
State Farm's attorneys then told jurors the company's position was simple. Wind was covered. Water or surge, whether wind driven or not, was not covered.
Norman Broussard was the first to take the stand. During his testimony, he broke down in tears while trying to describe finding a slab where their West Biloxi home once stood. Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. then ordered a short recess to give Broussard time to regain his composure.
When testimony resumed, Broussard said he did not have flood insurance. He, and later his wife Genevieve, testified they got three feet of water in their house during Camille, and little to no wind damage in Camille and later hurricanes. Both said they believe a tornado took their house on Brady Drive.
However, the couple's expert witness, a structural engineer, admitted under cross examination he found no evidence of a tornado. He said he'd done analysis based on interviews with hurricane witnesses, data collected by NOAA, and information from other sources. He concluded the wind gusts were strong enough and lasted long enough to destroy the home before the water got there.
The Broussards had more than $200,000 in insurance with State Farm. State Farm denied the claim saying water, not wind destroyed the home.
On the stand company executive Terry Blalock conceded there was probably some wind damage to the Broussards' home before the surge, but it was impossible to tell how much damage the wind did before the water arrived. Blalock said State Farm would rely on the jury to make that determination in this case.
The trial resumes Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Okay, if he concedes there was wind damage and it is not possible to know how much damage, why not just pay the damn claim? This is exactly WHY they are being sued.
Katrina slab case.. Big News!
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Katrina slab case.. Big News!
0 likes
State Farm lost today. The first slab case to go to trial. They were ordered to pay the full amount of the insured value on the Broussards policy PLUS punitive damage.
Like I stated above, even State Farm admitted they could not tell which was wind and which was water. So, they chose to tell people flood damaged their homes.
I am sure the greedy company will appeal.
_____________________________________________________________
A jury has ordered State Farm to pay $2.5 million to a Biloxi couple whose homeowner's claim was denied after Hurricane Katrina.
Thursday morning, Judge Senter awarded Norman and Genevieve Broussard $223,292 for the loss of their home and its contents, saying State Farm did not present sufficient evidence to prove the damage to their home was caused by storm surge alone.
The judge said the burden of proof was on State Farm, and that the plantiff needed to only prove direct physical loss.
Katrina left the couple nothing but a slab where their home of nearly 40 years once stood. The Broussards' home was on Brady Drive in west Biloxi. That area is behind where the Denny's used to be on Highway 90.
Judge Senter did not dismiss the request for punitive damages because, he said, State Farm's decision to not pay the Broussards' claim put an undue hardship on the Biloxi couple. A jury decided on the punitive award Thursday afternoon.
"We are surprised and disappointed by the court's ruling," said State Farm spokesman Phil Supple. "The expert testimony supported a different result. After the conclusion of this case, we will evaluate our next steps in this lawsuit."
Mississippi Insurance Commissioner George Dale is worried how Thursday's ruling may impact rebuilding on the coast. He said having an affordable insurance market is key to the area's economic recovery.
"I am concerned that some companies may use today's ruling as a reason to limit or exclude their writings on the Coast. My office and I will continue doing everything in our power to make sure that does not occur," Dale said in a statement.
The ruling against State Farm differs from the one Judge Senter delivered in Mississippi's first post-Katrina insurance trial. Last summer, Paul and Julie Leonard sued their insurance company, Nationwide. In that case, Judge Senter ruled in favor of Nationwide.
Prominent attorney Dickie Scruggs represented the Leonard's in that case. He'll join us today in the WLOX Studios on the News at Five and Six to talk about the differences in the cases, and the possible impact Thursday's ruling will have on other homeowners.
http://www.wlox.com
Like I stated above, even State Farm admitted they could not tell which was wind and which was water. So, they chose to tell people flood damaged their homes.
I am sure the greedy company will appeal.
_____________________________________________________________
A jury has ordered State Farm to pay $2.5 million to a Biloxi couple whose homeowner's claim was denied after Hurricane Katrina.
Thursday morning, Judge Senter awarded Norman and Genevieve Broussard $223,292 for the loss of their home and its contents, saying State Farm did not present sufficient evidence to prove the damage to their home was caused by storm surge alone.
The judge said the burden of proof was on State Farm, and that the plantiff needed to only prove direct physical loss.
Katrina left the couple nothing but a slab where their home of nearly 40 years once stood. The Broussards' home was on Brady Drive in west Biloxi. That area is behind where the Denny's used to be on Highway 90.
Judge Senter did not dismiss the request for punitive damages because, he said, State Farm's decision to not pay the Broussards' claim put an undue hardship on the Biloxi couple. A jury decided on the punitive award Thursday afternoon.
"We are surprised and disappointed by the court's ruling," said State Farm spokesman Phil Supple. "The expert testimony supported a different result. After the conclusion of this case, we will evaluate our next steps in this lawsuit."
Mississippi Insurance Commissioner George Dale is worried how Thursday's ruling may impact rebuilding on the coast. He said having an affordable insurance market is key to the area's economic recovery.
"I am concerned that some companies may use today's ruling as a reason to limit or exclude their writings on the Coast. My office and I will continue doing everything in our power to make sure that does not occur," Dale said in a statement.
The ruling against State Farm differs from the one Judge Senter delivered in Mississippi's first post-Katrina insurance trial. Last summer, Paul and Julie Leonard sued their insurance company, Nationwide. In that case, Judge Senter ruled in favor of Nationwide.
Prominent attorney Dickie Scruggs represented the Leonard's in that case. He'll join us today in the WLOX Studios on the News at Five and Six to talk about the differences in the cases, and the possible impact Thursday's ruling will have on other homeowners.
http://www.wlox.com
0 likes
-
MSRobi911
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 1259
- Age: 68
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 1:55 pm
- Location: Pascagoula, Misssissippi
Linda
Look for article in MS Press tomorrow, I will be quoted along with our attorney and Trent Lott and Gene Taylor. I told Natalie to not make me sound like a dummy, certainly hope she doesn't.
Mary
PS I am very pleased with this outcome and hope it becomes a precedent for other companies with slab cases that the courts need to look at this and that juries need to decide the outcome.
Mary
Look for article in MS Press tomorrow, I will be quoted along with our attorney and Trent Lott and Gene Taylor. I told Natalie to not make me sound like a dummy, certainly hope she doesn't.
Mary
PS I am very pleased with this outcome and hope it becomes a precedent for other companies with slab cases that the courts need to look at this and that juries need to decide the outcome.
Mary
0 likes
-
Aquawind
- Category 5
- Posts: 6714
- Age: 60
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:41 pm
- Location: Salisbury, NC
- Contact:
Well this will cearly be in appeal with the judge pulling the power play and making his own descision versus letting the jury decide. I would not be shocked to see it reversed as the defense thinks the jury did not hear the whole case at least that is what they said multiple times 15 minutes after the trial and outside the courtroom to reporters.
Of course it seems State Farm is trying to settle all of this out of court as well so that could end the legal actions. Problem with that is the possible rulings would not benefit future issues then..of course they don't want anymore rulings that actually stand up because that just give precedence for future claims against all insurance companies.. I would think all insurance companies are working together to avoid that.. heck they are probably willing to help All State settle out of court for that very reason..
Of course it seems State Farm is trying to settle all of this out of court as well so that could end the legal actions. Problem with that is the possible rulings would not benefit future issues then..of course they don't want anymore rulings that actually stand up because that just give precedence for future claims against all insurance companies.. I would think all insurance companies are working together to avoid that.. heck they are probably willing to help All State settle out of court for that very reason..
0 likes
That is not the actual cases like the Broussards. They are trying to settle out of court on the class action lawsuit against them involving 600+ people. There are 200 on the dockets for trial involving the wind versus water lawsuit.
State Farm will spend millions of dollars if they try to appeal every court decision. Bad move on their part if they try to do that.
Next will come the temper tantrum from that company about pulling out of Mississippi. I say BYE BYE!
State Farm will spend millions of dollars if they try to appeal every court decision. Bad move on their part if they try to do that.
Next will come the temper tantrum from that company about pulling out of Mississippi. I say BYE BYE!
0 likes
-
Aquawind
- Category 5
- Posts: 6714
- Age: 60
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 10:41 pm
- Location: Salisbury, NC
- Contact:
Lindaloo wrote:That is not the actual cases like the Broussards. They are trying to settle out of court on the class action lawsuit against them involving 600+ people. There are 200 on the dockets for trial involving the wind versus water lawsuit.
State Farm will spend millions of dollars if they try to appeal every court decision. Bad move on their part if they try to do that.
Next will come the temper tantrum from that company about pulling out of Mississippi. I say BYE BYE!
The report I heard mentiond thousands of customers and hence hundreds of millions of dollars in trying to settle out of court. I think it was on one of these CNN videos in the article.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/11/katri ... index.html
This court case alone puts alot of pressure on them for existing and future issues.. unless of course it's bye bye.. Although any court descisions will play a role in all future insurance cases with any company..
0 likes
Oh, I see what you are saying.
State Farm thought they had won, also adjusters getting big headed telling people to read policies. People are not stupid when it comes to their policies. But, when you have nothing left but a slab and the adjusters are telling you flood did that and are denying claims based on that alone without providing proof, the courts will probably lean the same way in each case. They can either pay the claims or lose big by appealing each decision.
State Farm thought they had won, also adjusters getting big headed telling people to read policies. People are not stupid when it comes to their policies. But, when you have nothing left but a slab and the adjusters are telling you flood did that and are denying claims based on that alone without providing proof, the courts will probably lean the same way in each case. They can either pay the claims or lose big by appealing each decision.
0 likes
-
MGC
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 5792
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:05 pm
- Location: Pass Christian MS, or what is left.
I hate State Farm. They treated me bad after a car wreck I had a few years ago. The lawyer I hired taught them a lesson. Insurance companies threatening to not do business in one particular area or state should be made illegal. I say if you want to sell a particular insurance coverage anywhere in America then that coverage should be made available throughout America. None of this cherry picking on who will get insurance. Congressman Gene Taylor along with Senator Trent Lott, whom both lost homes to Katrina should sponsor legislation outlawing this practice in their respective chambers....MGC
0 likes
-
MSRobi911
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 1259
- Age: 68
- Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2003 1:55 pm
- Location: Pascagoula, Misssissippi
Aquawind
You know your (Florida) state courts have already made a ruling that on any slab case there is no way to determine what came first, the wind or the water to damage the home, therefore both policies have to pay in full! Only MS doesn't recognize FL rulings, whereas other states do.
This ruling makes me a very happy camper!!!!! It look's good for the home team! I know it will be a long time before we ever get to court but we will wait our turn.
Oh and I don't see how John Banahan can say that he wished they had heard their whole case, he is the one that had to rest his case, I am sure that he had every opportunity to present his full case, if not the judge must have ruled on objection by the other side against him.
Don't get me wrong, I really like John Banahan, he is a nice man, my kids went to school with his kids and he only lives about 1/2 a mile down the road from me, but he still had stucture left and they lived in the upstairs part of their house after repairs to their roof, etc. His statement on the news last night had be wondering what he was saying, but he did have a smile on his face!
Mary
You know your (Florida) state courts have already made a ruling that on any slab case there is no way to determine what came first, the wind or the water to damage the home, therefore both policies have to pay in full! Only MS doesn't recognize FL rulings, whereas other states do.
This ruling makes me a very happy camper!!!!! It look's good for the home team! I know it will be a long time before we ever get to court but we will wait our turn.
Oh and I don't see how John Banahan can say that he wished they had heard their whole case, he is the one that had to rest his case, I am sure that he had every opportunity to present his full case, if not the judge must have ruled on objection by the other side against him.
Don't get me wrong, I really like John Banahan, he is a nice man, my kids went to school with his kids and he only lives about 1/2 a mile down the road from me, but he still had stucture left and they lived in the upstairs part of their house after repairs to their roof, etc. His statement on the news last night had be wondering what he was saying, but he did have a smile on his face!
Mary
0 likes
MGC wrote:I hate State Farm. They treated me bad after a car wreck I had a few years ago. The lawyer I hired taught them a lesson. Insurance companies threatening to not do business in one particular area or state should be made illegal. I say if you want to sell a particular insurance coverage anywhere in America then that coverage should be made available throughout America. None of this cherry picking on who will get insurance. Congressman Gene Taylor along with Senator Trent Lott, whom both lost homes to Katrina should sponsor legislation outlawing this practice in their respective chambers....MGC
They do and they have admitted it will be a fight and one they will win.
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
this is a really tough issue to decide
On one hand, those who purchased insurance without flood coverage should not be covered. That is in the terms of the contract signed by the customer.
However, in these cases, it is not known which came first.
I do not agree with the Florida court ruling, as it gives people double what they should have received (from both policies).
Maybe work out some compromise in the cases where it is not known which came first. Maybe the homeowners policy should provide half coverage in that instance. Where there are clear delineations between the wind and the surge damage, homeowners should only cover the wind.
An alternative way to work this out would be transform the federal flood insurance to either flood and wind insurance, or create a separate federal hurricane insurance program which would cover all wind, surge, and rain damage within 100 miles of the coastline. Sewt it up so that if one lives within 100 miles of the coast, only hurricane insurance would provide any coverage from hurricane damage. The federal flood insurance would still be in effect for regions further inland, and within 100 miles of the coast for non TC events
On one hand, those who purchased insurance without flood coverage should not be covered. That is in the terms of the contract signed by the customer.
However, in these cases, it is not known which came first.
I do not agree with the Florida court ruling, as it gives people double what they should have received (from both policies).
Maybe work out some compromise in the cases where it is not known which came first. Maybe the homeowners policy should provide half coverage in that instance. Where there are clear delineations between the wind and the surge damage, homeowners should only cover the wind.
An alternative way to work this out would be transform the federal flood insurance to either flood and wind insurance, or create a separate federal hurricane insurance program which would cover all wind, surge, and rain damage within 100 miles of the coastline. Sewt it up so that if one lives within 100 miles of the coast, only hurricane insurance would provide any coverage from hurricane damage. The federal flood insurance would still be in effect for regions further inland, and within 100 miles of the coast for non TC events
0 likes
/099.gif)
From the comments on here it is clear that the wind/hurricane insurance needs to be a federal program. In spite of the anger expressed here and I understand the hurt people are going through, the Insurers did not charge (underwrite) the preimums to cover what should be flood. If the wind policy is also to cover flood damage, then a change will be needed. Comments about forcing compies to cover cost building or else are very strange in a free market society. The answer; socialize that portion of the industry as required to ensure those who live on the coast can buy cheap insurance subisidzed by the rest of the country. Seems fair to me. Or, if the courts cases go ahead and every one gets millions in punitive damages, maybe the very rich(er) lawyers can use theriehard earned cash to set up their own insurance company for wind/hurricane insurance. Paying nothing for wind damage was wrong, I was impressed by how Farm Bureau handled the issue. But bring forced to pay many times the wind damage (the entire loss) and punitive damaged is also wrong.
0 likes
stormcrow, did you even read the links? If you had, then you would understand that State Farm had the burden to prove, they came up short. IMO, the judge made the right judgement call.
How do the insurance companies KNOW that the house was already gone when the surge came in, therefore washing the debris off the slab. They don't. But, they denied claims saying that the flood did it. WRONG! They should have just paid the damn claims and flood should have paid (which they did) their part, end of discussion.
You should read the links and maybe see it from a different perspective since you are, afterall, an adjuster for the insurance companies!
How do the insurance companies KNOW that the house was already gone when the surge came in, therefore washing the debris off the slab. They don't. But, they denied claims saying that the flood did it. WRONG! They should have just paid the damn claims and flood should have paid (which they did) their part, end of discussion.
You should read the links and maybe see it from a different perspective since you are, afterall, an adjuster for the insurance companies!
0 likes
While I agree that State Farm (who i have always declined to work for) was wrong not to pay something for the wind loss, this was over kill by the court. They (Big Red) have to appeal (or negotiate).
Your comment "That surge line is not going to fly with me anyway" is a clear message that only a government program supported by Federal taxes is the only thing that will satisfy people in the hurricane zones; there is no way that a for profit company will be able to ignore the contract and just pay. (for fun some day read about the NFIP and the claiments from Hurricane Isobel)
Your comment "That surge line is not going to fly with me anyway" is a clear message that only a government program supported by Federal taxes is the only thing that will satisfy people in the hurricane zones; there is no way that a for profit company will be able to ignore the contract and just pay. (for fun some day read about the NFIP and the claiments from Hurricane Isobel)
0 likes
-
Derek Ortt
a federal program may not need to be supported by tax dollars.
It can be supported by a premium by all residents within 100 miles of the coast. Maybe 300-500 per year. There are probably about 100 million residents in this area (maybe close to 150 million), with additional vacation homes. A provision would have to be in place that the gov't could NOT spend that money on other projects when the full fund was not payed out within a year
It can be supported by a premium by all residents within 100 miles of the coast. Maybe 300-500 per year. There are probably about 100 million residents in this area (maybe close to 150 million), with additional vacation homes. A provision would have to be in place that the gov't could NOT spend that money on other projects when the full fund was not payed out within a year
0 likes
Return to “Hurricane Recovery and Aftermath”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 102 guests