May It Please The Court: Weblog of legal news and observations, including a quote of the day and daily updates

Skip To Content

MIPTC Author:

Bookstore:


The Sled:


Listed in Latino Who's Who, June 2014
 Attorney
Locations of visitors to this page

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.


Weblog Comments

Return to the Weblog

Quote of the Day - “The first rule of hurricane coverage is that every broadcast must begin with palm trees bending in the wind. - Carl Hiaasen

Hurricane Insurance Depends On Your Coverage And Carrier

Some Mississippians are happy, State Farm is not.  Senior Judge L.T. Senter ruled that the flood exclusions in State Farm policies provide no basis for State Farm to deny claims.  In other words, State Farm policies cover Hurricane Katrina damage.  Judge said, "Of course, I cannot know at this juncture what the evidence will be.  But it is my opinion, upon a thorough review of the terms of the State Farm policy, that the damage attributable to wind and rain will be covered, regardless of whether an inflow of water caused additional damage that would be excluded from coverage."

With the new hurricane season just days away, it's welcome news to State Farm policyholders in the region. 

That's not the case with Allstate policies, however.  Earlier, the same judge ruled that Allstate's exclusions were "drawn quite broadly, and they have the clear purpose of excluding damage caused by inundation from coverage," as quoted in the FindLaw article linked above.

Posted by J. Craig Williams on 5/24/2006 at 18:45 Comments (1)

 

Comments

Comments by Julie Tripp from United Kingdom on Thursday, June 08, 2006 at 09:36

I think you'll find that, if you actually read Judge Senter's opinions denying Insurers' Motions to Dismiss in both the Buente and Tuepker actions, you'll see that in both cases he said EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Both the Allstate and State Farm policies contain "valid and enforecable" flood exclusions (see p8 of Buente and p6 of Tuepker). In addition, neither company can rely on its so-called "weather exclusion", which attempts to exclude any loss from, e.g. windstorm if accompanied by water. Under Mississippi law coverage is only excluded if the water damage occurred BEFORE the wind damage, not after (as the exclusion attempts to do).
In both cases Plaintiffs - not Insurers - must prove that the wind damage occurred prior to damge caused by storm surge in order to be successful. Tuepker in fact follows Judge Senter's opinion given when dismissing Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Buente, where the Judge held that the claim could not be summarily dismissed as "the water that entered and damaged the plaintiffs' home was tidal water, I find that the damage caused by this inundation is excluded from coverage under the Allstate policy". In Tuepker Judge Senter states (again on p6) "Losses directly attributable to water in the form of a 'storm surge' are excluded from coverage because this damage was caused by tthe inundation of plaintiffs' home by tidal water from the Mississippi Sound driven ashore during Hurricane Katrina."
I would suggest you actually read the cases you report on, rather than relying on others' erroneous accounts...

 

Comments are now closed.

Send your comments directly to the author at jcraigwms at wlf-law.com (remove spaces and add @ symbol in place of the "at").