Judge: Katrina storm surge not covered

[wayoutfront]

You tell me


use the scenario I put above with the basement since you are an expert how is there 100% coverage?


There isn't.

PS there is a big diference in working closely with a Cat team and being the Cat team. Like I said in a earlier post There are presidents and receptionists that both claim years of experience in the insurance business

[timNms]

I don't have flood insurance. I am 100 miles inland, so there is no danger of being flooded by surge. I do not live near any bodies of water, nor any streams, creeks, or rivers. However, Katrina caused some water damage to our house. She blew off several shingles and an attic vent that was on top of the house. After the vent "went with the wind" our bedroom began to flood. I wasn't just a tiny trickle of water coming in. The water was pouring in thru the light fixture in the ceiling (as if someone had placed a garden hose in the attic). This occured during the eyewall passage...the worst part of the storm. It lasted for about an hour. Due to the wind blowing, the water was blown around in the attic and managed to come thru the hall ceiling as well. Our insurance adjuster finally came in Feb to inspect the damage. We were given a little over $4000 for damages. Our adjuster was one of the nicest persons I've ever met. She said that in order to make the ceiling look like it should, she was including enough $ to buy ceiling paint to cover the living room, dining room, and kitchen. She included a damaged television antenna, new screen for the sliding door, and several other small items that I would not have thought about. And of course, she included a few bundles of shingles and a new vent for the attic. In other words, when she left, I got the impression that she was not trying to save the insurance company money, but was trying to replace the things that one of her clients had lost.

Wayoutfront, my question to you is this. Did the water cause the damage or did the wind? The same can be asked about the properties along the coast. Did the wind cause the damage or did the water? Who's to say that several thousands of dollars worth of damage was not done before the surge came in and wiped everything away?

I find it hard to believe that in the case mentioned, the owners only had around $3000 in damages due exclusively to the wind, considering what happened at my house.

[Lindaloo]

You tell me


use the scenario I put above with the basement since you are an expert how is there 100% coverage?


There isn't.

PS there is a big diference in working closely with a Cat team and being the Cat team. Like I said in a earlier post There are presidents and receptionists that both claim years of experience in the insurance business

Oh here we go again. Is that all you have to say? Your continuing to bash me is getting quite old. Second, your expertise is up for debate too. I was not a receptionist. Sounds to me like you need to retire, it is starting to get to you.

I just got off the phone with the insurance commissioner of MS. He told me that yes they are SUPPOSED to top each other (pay from both policies when the home is reduced to a slab). wayoutfront, you have NO idea who you are dealing with do you?

tim.... he is too busy worrying about my credentials to answer your question. If a home had roof failure which caused the entire house to be blown down by the wind, surge came in and washed the house away, the insurance company will say "Oh that was flood that did that" Before they even investigate anything.

And you said in another post and told MSRobi that you had no clue about a hurricane rider and you just said "READ YOUR POLICY" The rider is called an Umbrella. Ya didn't know that? Ya never heard of it? LOL!

[stormcrow]

Tim, there is a difference between wind drive rain (covered as per your loss) and wind driven water (surge or surface water, not covered) This applies to most homeowners policies depending on the wordings.

[wayoutfront]

Tim !st off
The 3000 in the Leonard Case is kinda weird and that he was satisfied with it.

I saw this first hand Laurel and Hattiesburg sustained more wind damage than Poplarville which is halfway to the coast .

and Ditto what the above poster said.

and I am familiar with Umbrellas and they cover LIABILITY

No such thing as a Hurricane Umbrella

[Lindaloo]

No one said anything about a hurricane umbrella. I said umbrella period. Guess you had to look it up.


While you may be confident that you won't face a large claim, an umbrella policy is useful in protecting you from potential financial catastrophe.

Say you have a basic homeowner's insurance policy with $500,000 of coverage for dwelling and property damage. Any amounts that exceed that claim limit would have to be paid by you.

[wayoutfront]

Again Your wrong
An umbrella will not help at all on property damage
Only Liability Like if someone slips and falls on your property

Geez this is getting real Old

I am passing the torch to stormcrow




Anything that you need to say to me say it in public as I am going delete all other messages without reading them

[stormcrow]

Way; you can buy excess coverage for wind and flood (sometimes refered to as an umbrella policy). Usually written through Lloyds or similar markets. Considering flood limits homes to 250,000 building coverage their is certainly a need. Also high end homes are more likley to have this coverage if their agent is knowledgeble (NOLA agents didn't seem to be).

[wayoutfront]

Thats not what she is talking about...

going out on the boat see ya'll later

[Lindaloo]

Thank you for the verification stormcrow. You are right about the knowledge, except for one agent, Mr. Kelleher. He advises all of his customers to purchase an umbrella.

[Lindaloo]

Thats not what she is talking about...

going out on the boat see ya'll later

Accept it, that is what I was talking about. If you are so full of expert then why didn't you. LOL!!

[wayoutfront]

No you weren't



and since I am now endangered of a 3 day suspension I will back off and let you have free reign to misguide and mislead these folks

But I do want to know

Were you an adjuster for 12 years like you claimed last year?

[Lindaloo]

I am not a fraud wayoutfront. I did not work in the insurance industry last year. I do have 12 years experience under my belt. People leave a job, but can still have 12 years experience. I keep my license current just in case I decide to go back or help out when I am needed.

Have a nice day!

It is not your job to tell people what you have been telling them in here and rather harshly, I might add.

[timNms]

Tim, there is a difference between wind drive rain (covered as per your loss) and wind driven water (surge or surface water, not covered) This applies to most homeowners policies depending on the wordings.

Stormcrow, thanks for the reply. That made sense. I do have another question for you, if you don't mind.

How can they tell the difference in wind driven rain damage and surge damage after there is nothing left but a slab? Who's to say that many of those homes didn't lose some or part of their roofs prior to the surge taking the house out?

[stormcrow]

Tim thats a tough one. I am not an engineer. If I was trying to do this without one, I would observe what was left and also the surrounding area. I would try to find out the timing of the surge (total distruction) with the known and estimated wind speeds. That combined with the house, know materials (ie type of roofing windows etc) would try to determine how to divide up the damages. Wind rarely leaves only a pad in a hurricane. I have seen bare pads in OKC in 1999(tornado). The only bare pads I saw after Andrew were trailers. Charlie crossed Upper Captiva Island as a cat 4 and all the buildings I saw were standing although many were heavily damaged, none I saw needed structural repairs. The more evidence you can find showing strong winds preceded the surge the better case you have.

[Lindaloo]

I agree with some of that stormcrow. But, if a roof comes completely off, there is most definitely going to be structural failure, if not total collapse. If there was no surge it would be a no brainer to see that this was wind damage. If this occurred and then the surge came in, how can you tell which did what? I understand the timing of the surge prior to the winds and vice versa as you stated above. There has got to be some way to prove it. The lawsuits (some of them) are being filed based on what I said above. Instead of investigating they are automatically saying that the insured's damage was caused by flood. Some of these people have not found any of their belongings, no roofs, no bricks, nothing. Other people down the street are finding top sections of their homes, clothes, pictures etc. I just wish I could understand this.

Alot of people blame the emotions on the lawsuits. But, these people have a legitimate reason for doing what they are doing.

[timNms]

stormcrow, again, thanks for the reply. What you say makes sense. But it is hard for me to comprehend how they can say that the damage was mostly surge damage when there is absolutely nothing but a slab left. Guess that's where the engineers come in? Case in point...our friends who lived in waveland now have nothing but a concrete slab and about 10 pilings remaining. We could not find anything from the house (siding, shingles, lumber, etc. only a few broken dishes scattered around their property).

Surely, the surge wiped the house away, but how do they know a tornado or something of the likes didn't cause major damage before the surge??? Of course, here-100 miles inland, we didn't have to worry about the surge, but we did have tornadoes (or at least what I think were tornadoes). You'd have areas that all the trees were either snapped or uprooted, but 10 yrds away, trees would still standing, although stripped of foilage and in some cases bark stripped off and the bare limbs hangin on for dear life. These "damage streaks" for lack of a better word, were quite common to see. They'd be anywhere from a few feet wide to several yard wide.

Forgive me if it appears that I am trying to argue. I'm just curious as to how the pros can make a decision based on what is left....or in most cases, nothing that is left to examine.

[stormcrow]

If there was evidence of a tornado, such as a path of trees snapped leading to the house it would strengthen the arguement. In okc where the wind were over 300mph and the funnel often 1/2 wide there was a clear path of total destruction, with the wind damage disappearing in a block of each side. You would need to show you were in the path. It ia not easy nor is it exact to make these determinations. Any insurer that assumed flood without investigating deserves what they get.

[timNms]

Thanks, stormcrow.

[Lindaloo]

If there was evidence of a tornado, such as a path of trees snapped leading to the house it would strengthen the arguement. In okc where the wind were over 300mph and the funnel often 1/2 wide there was a clear path of total destruction, with the wind damage disappearing in a block of each side. You would need to show you were in the path. It ia not easy nor is it exact to make these determinations. Any insurer that assumed flood without investigating deserves what they get.

I agree with your last statement.