LAKESHORE, Miss. -- A lot of people believe their homes were destroyed by tornadoes generated by Hurricane Katrina rather than the storm's killer surge, but John Trowbridge makes a more compelling case than most.
Trowbridge's modest two-story home near Waveland was demolished along with two neighboring homes while other houses of the same style and age in the neighborhood remained standing, despite taking about 8 feet of water. That led virtually every insurance adjuster and engineer who inspected the scene to conclude that a tornado touched down and caused the devastation, Trowbridge and his attorney say.
Yet his carrier Nationwide has paid him only $515.62 (after subtracting a deductible of about $2,000) and denied his request for additional payment, saying it was not liable because Katrina's storm surge caused at least some of the damage. "Loss resulting from water or water-borne material is not covered even if other perils contributed, directly or indirectly to cause the loss," Nationwide's adjuster wrote in his denial letter.
A spokesman for Nationwide said he could not comment directly on the case, citing both privacy issues and the pending litigation.
Trowbridge and his wife, Judy, are among thousands of homeowners battling their insurance companies in the ongoing wind vs. water debate that is still a prime topic of conversation among Katrina survivors and is seen as a major barrier to the ability of many people to rebuild in southern Mississippi.
Like bereaved victims passing through various stages of grief, many homeowners have followed a predictable pattern in their dealings with insurance carriers: Optimism that their claim will be honored, outrage when it is denied, bargaining that is usually fruitless, mediation and finally litigation.
'My blood pressure goes up'
We are now well into the litigation phase, as plaintiffs' lawyers have signed up perhaps 1,000 or more clients in south Mississippi alone, and cases are beginning to wend their way through state and federal court. Dozens if not hundreds of cases are pending as well in Louisiana, where frustrated homeowners have filed suit against insurance companies, levee boards and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over damage related to Katrina.
"Every time I hear the name Nationwide my blood pressure goes up," said Trowbridge, 51, a supervisor for Lockheed Martin at NASA's Michoud assembly facility in New Orleans.
Trowbridge's house was one of an estimated 134,000 that were destroyed or badly damaged in Mississippi, and several lawyers say many of the owners are turning litigious as they conclude they have few other options if they want to try to get more out of their insurance carriers.
"They are going to lose every single one of those suits once they get to trial," state Attorney General Jim Hood said of the insurance companies. "Those juries are not going to have any mercy on them."
Hood, who filed suit against major carriers on behalf of homeowners less then three weeks after Katrina swept ashore, called on the insurance companies to "come to the table" and negotiate an agreement offering an interpretation of their policies that is more favorable to homeowners.
"Otherwise they will continue to get hammered by juries for 10 years out," he said. "I want the insurance companies to do their part, nothing more."
The insurance industry contends that damage from storm surge is properly excluded as a type of flooding, which generally is covered only by separate flood insurance offered by the federal government that offers a maximum payout of about $250,000 for structural damage. Many homeowners who lost their homes in the storm were not required to carry flood insurance, and even some who had the coverage are suing for compensation for damage they say was caused by wind.
Lawsuit 'threatens ... industry's financial stability'
Hood's lawsuit "threatens to undermine the insurance industry's financial stability and its ability to respond not only to its obligations arising out of Katrina, but also its ability to respond to other claim obligations in Mississippi and elsewhere in the U.S.," said Dick Luedke, a spokesman for State Farm, the largest insurer of homes in the state.
The suit "is challenging the validity of contracts in Mississippi, and that threatens the foundation of the economy in that state and has enormous ramifications for every resident of the state," he said.
In addition to the case filed by Hood, litigation against the major insurers is moving ahead on several fronts.
Richard "Dickie" Scruggs, a well-known Mississippi plaintiffs' attorney who lost his own Pascagoula home to the hurricane, has filed lawsuits against five major insurance companies on behalf of seven clients, including Sen. Trent Lott and Rep. Gene Taylor, who both lost their homes. Scruggs has advertised heavily and says he has been retained by 850 clients who are prepared to sue in what amounts to a virtual class-action case.
Click to read previous related story, 'No assurances on insurance'
In one of the first decisions issued so far in the Katrina lawsuits, U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter denied Allstate Insurance Co.'s motion to dismiss one of Scruggs' cases and said Allstate would be liable for damage caused by wind and rain "regardless of whether a later inflow of water caused additional damage that would be excluded from coverage."
Another lawyer, Richard Phillips, has filed a separate class-action lawsuit against State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., contending that the carrier is improperly excluding losses caused by a combination of wind and water.
Trowbridge's attorney, Randy Santa Cruz of Bay St. Louis, is taking a slightly different approach, using engineering reports and meteorological data in an effort to prove on a case-by-case basis that his clients' homes suffered substantial wind damage before the storm surge hit.
Santa Cruz said insurance companies including State Farm and Nationwide are "badly misinterpreting" their own policies.
"I think it's an organized scheme on their part to avoid paying claims," he said. "They have to pay damage that would have occurred in the absence of a storm surge. They can't tell me there wouldn’t have been any damage without a storm surge. They have the burden to prove the existence of their exclusion."
'Fraudulent denial of claims'
Santa Cruz is also looking into reports that some engineering firms might have been pressured to change their conclusions to satisfy insurance company demands. In at least one case, an engineering report allegedly was altered to delete a reference to wind as the cause of damage to a Gulfport home and then signed with a forged signature, according to a complaint filed by homeowners Hubert and Joyce Smith. A lawyer for the engineering firm declined comment, saying the Smiths' complaint had not yet been formally served. A grand jury in Gulfport has subpoenaed insurance company documents, and Hood is investigating what his office described as the "the insurance industry's fraudulent denial of claims on the coast."
In Trowbridge's case, his wood-frame house was reduced to a heap of jumbled blue-gray lumber, insulation and assorted debris, while a half-dozen nearby homes of similar style and age were still standing and appeared structurally sound, although they had taken on up to 8 feet of water and needed significant repairs.
Only the homes of Trowbridge and two neighbors were destroyed so utterly that the experts who saw it concluded it must have been the result of localized intense wind activity.
"It is likely that tornadic activity occurred at or near the referenced address and caused substantial wind damage," said a report prepared for Nationwide by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, an engineering firm. However, the report concluded that the house was destroyed by "a combination of forces consisting primarily of hurricane induced storm surge, wind-driven waves and the impact of floating debris."
Trowbridge's case is hardly unique. John "Corky" Hadden, 45, a financial adviser who owned a big home worth more than $500,000 in a prime Bay St. Louis location across from the yacht club, was left with little more than a slab and virtually no coverage from his homeowners' insurance. He, his wife and three teenage children are determined to rebuild on the same spot, where Hadden lived as a boy until the previous house was destroyed by Hurricane Camille in 1969.
Mediation ends in frustration
Just up North Beach Boulevard, Dr. Wesley McFarland, 82, and his wife, Rosemary, are staying part-time in a FEMA trailer on the now-vacant lot where they lived more than 50 years in a home that was worth more than $1 million with its contents, he said.
McFarland recently brought his case to a state-sponsored mediation hearing with a 42-page report he prepared, documenting what he called clear signs of wind damage to his former home. State Farm representatives offered less than 0.5 percent of what he sought. McFarland said, and the physician later appeared on a television advertisement paid for by Scruggs' law firm denouncing the mediation process.
Dr. Wesley McFarland and his wife Rosemary have little left of their home except for the front steps. (David Friedman / MSNBC.com)
The "slab claims" of Hadden and McFarland are among the most common type of insurance dispute being contested in Mississippi. State Insurance Commissioner George Dale, in a March 24 letter to State Farm, reminded the carrier that it cannot simply deny a claim for wind damage because the storm surge would have destroyed the home anyway. Instead, adjusters need to take into consideration accounts from witnesses and damage to neighboring homes and pay out whatever portion of the loss was due to wind, Dale said.
That offers a huge opening for plaintiffs like Hadden, whose lawyer, Santa Cruz, talks about sustained winds of 130 mph and witness' accounts of tornados in the beachfront area.
"The evidence is going to be pretty clear that there was extensive wind damage before the storm surge," Santa Cruz said.
For his part Hadden still seems to have a hard time believing that his claim was denied outright.
"I have been very careful about how I handle my financial situation," he said. "I met regularly with my insurance agent. I don't mind paying for small things but I wanted to avoid catastrophic losses. I felt like I had done everything by the book."
After the hurricane, Hadden was so confident about his insurance coverage that he actually spray-painted a notice on one of the surviving concrete-block pillars of his home: "All is well. Thank God and State Farm."
Molly and John "Corky" Hadden lost their beachfront home in Bay St. Louis to Katrina. Click ‘Play’ to see and hear Corky Hadden describe their legal battle with their insurer.
Those last three words have since been covered over with more spray paint. "State Farm in my opinion made a business decision to force people like us to take legal action to try to recover our money," Hadden said. "I think it's a terrible way to do business, and it's really one of the single biggest factors holding back the recovery of our coastline, the way that we've been treated by the insurance companies."
McFarland, a large, outspoken man who still works three days a week as a physician at NASA's Stennis Space Center, is also furious about his treatment by State Farm. "These people sold me something," he said. "I expect them to pay me what they owe me. If it takes two years, four years or more, we'll wait."
Trowbridge, in a baseball cap and windbreaker, still stares at the scene of his home's wreckage with a mixture of sadness and disbelief. He remembers the name of virtually every insurance agent, adjuster and engineer he has encountered since he first saw the destruction two days after the storm. He and his wife, Judy, immediately turned around and drove 100 miles to Hattiesburg and then another 230 miles to Birmingham, Ala., to find a working phone and file their claim.
After weeks of calling and waiting to hear an answer, the Trowbridges finally were told just before Thanksgiving that their claim was denied. Trowbridge, angry but determined, called the adjuster's supervisor in Memphis, Tenn.
'Happy Thanksgiving,' and goodbye
"I said, 'Can't we negotiate about this? Offer me something, please. Deal with me.' He said their lawyers had decided they could win in court. He wished me a happy Thanksgiving and then hung up," Trowbridge said.
Trowbridge retained Santa Cruz as his attorney shortly afterward, and they continued to try to reach an agreement by going through a mediation hearing arranged by the state Insurance Department. About 1,650 policy-holders have scheduled mediation, with 189 of the first 216 cases settled before or at the hearings, according to the department.
But in Trowbridge's case, Nationwide was unwilling to offer anything more.
"I was actually hopeful that we could come to some sort of agreement," he said. "They told me that you should be happy you got your flood (insurance)."
Trowbridge was paid in full by the National Flood Insurance Program and got about $120,000, although his losses were much higher. The Nationwide policy valued the house and contents at about $230,000, said Santa Cruz, and the lawsuit also seeks payment for replacement costs, attorney fees and punitive damages.
The Trowbridges knew they were potential targets for a killer storm, and after the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean began to make plans to move to higher ground. Last spring they bought a piece of land on Firetower Road, near one of the highest points in the county, and began working feverishly to remodel their home, putting in new floors, new kitchen fixtures and a remodeled bathroom.
“We were to the point of putting a sign out” to sell it, Judy Trowbridge said.
Now they have taken out a loan from the Small Business Administration and are beginning work on their new home some 15 miles to the north.
"There was a while that we thought we were going to have to seek medical attention for depression," John Trowbridge said. "It still is a depressing time in our life."
Trying to remember 'normal'
EMAIL THIS
TRACKBACKS
Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do no appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d83483793453ef
advertisement
I have worked for one of the largest insurance companies for the past 6 years. My next statement may shock many people, however in my 6 years of working Auto Claims, I have never been asked to handle any claim in an unethical manner or purposely deny coverage.
Our goal is to try and find coverage. There are cases where we have to deny claims however when we do, the wording on the policy is clear and conscise.
Many Americans do not have regular insurance check ups with their Agents or companies or many feel like the Agent is just trying to make money. The Agents are the experts at what they do and their advice should be taken in a positive manner. The Agent is truly looking out for your best interest (Unfortunately I cannot speak for all).
Many people also feel that insurance companies are taking advantage of them however you would be surprised at the number of individuals feel entitled to payments when they have a claim just because they have paid their premiums on time and been with a company for a long time.
How many people file false claims, especially injury claims, on a yearly basis? How many attorneys and doctors are in on the filing of false claims? How does that make people feel?
I do not see anyone coming to the insurance industry defense on this matter. Please read your policies and follow advice that is given by insurance professionals. Do not underinsure yourself because you can lose it all in an instant.
Like many people in this country, we always look to blame somebody.
George Molina, Puyallup, WA (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:47:36 PM)
You got it. Suing them is the ONLY way.
Look, I'm all for personal accountability. If you didn't have flood insurance AND YOU FLOODED, tough bananas. Eat your losses - you gambled and LOST.
But - how about the people TWENTY MILES INLAND who did NOT flood - and could not have? That damage was WIND related, NOT flood related.
That's a COVERED LOSS, and yet the companies play the same game.
I live in a coastal area, and am not "required" to have flood insurance. I have it ANYWAY. Why? Because its cheap for what you get, and if I flood, I am buying insurance against that risk. The risk is real and so is the premium - but on balance, its worth it.
I have no empathy for those who had no flood coverage and flooded. At all. But for those who had obvious wind damage and the companies are playing games with them, and I have friends who HAD IT HAPPEN in last couple of years - first hand knowledge here, as I was their shelter - I say sue 'em all right out of business.
Karl Denninger, Niceville FL (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:48:33 PM)
Weather it's health insurance, auto insurance or home owners insurance, it's all LEGAL EXTORTION.
Deborah McGuckian (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:48:56 PM)
My home flooded with 4 feet of water from Hurricane Katrina and I cannot speak highly enough of USAA. As a previous poster said, if you can get USAA - switch to them immediately! They returned my calls promptly and I even got a phone call from one adjuster saying that I was short on maxing out my coverage and if I could just think of a few more items, he could calculate them out for me. On the other hand, upon purchase of my home, I went over every possibility with USAA. When I asked if I was covered for a hurricane, they told me wind only and so I asked for flood insurance. I am with the minority here in that individuals needs to look over their policies and you shouldn't get something you didn't pay for. I know USAA would not have given me money for flood if I hadn't gotten flood insurance. I went through a pain-staking process when buying my home and ensuring it was properly insured for all possibilities. I even clarified what hurricane coverage meant and I was told 'wind only' so I then asked for flood insurance. We need to ask the right questions and ask for help if we don't know.
Chris, Slidell, LA (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:51:10 PM)
Blah Blah Blah.. The big bad insurance company.. gee, you think from listening to everyone whining about things that insurance companies were non-profit organizations.. need I remind you that they aren't. If you live on the coast and build a straw house in the middle of hurricane alley and then don't buy BOTH flood and wind coverage.. then don't whine about the way your claim is settled or expect the rest of the country to buy you a new home.. wind is wind.. flood is flood.. and stupid is as stupid does.
Josh Nelson (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:51:20 PM)
Seems to me that those people (most of us) who could never afford a house on the beach shouldn't have to pay increased insurance premiums so that rich people can rebuild. If you are rich and stupid enough to build a house on the beach, you should be forced to rebuild on your own.
Greg Ziglar (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:51:22 PM)
I did note in the article that the insurance companies had paid out more than 8 BILLION DOLLARS in claims in Mississippi alone - so it doesn't appear that they are just arbitrarily deciding to not pay claims - there appear to be some real differences of opinion as to the cause of the losses that were denied -this article was only from the side of the people who had claims denied. Some may have been wrongly denied and maybe a few even fraudulently denied, but probably not all of them. We live in Southern Alabama and EVERY day during hurricane season ads run on the television advising people down here to get flood insurance even if they don't live in a "flood zone" as anything can happen!! I can't understand not having flood insurance if there has already been a hurricane in the past that caused a house to flood.
The courts will decide the cases based on the language in the policies (not emotions) and even if juries at the lower court level find for the insureds, when the cases are appealed, most will be overturned in favor of the insurance companies because everything will boil down to the contract language at that level.
Emlee Lage (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:52:09 PM)
Most of these are comments are without reason. We all sympathize with those who suffered loss, but people, instead of pursuing the lowest cost insurance, maybe take a moment to actually look at what you need and pay for the correct coverage. So much heartache could have been avoided if people would have simply looked at the fact they were at a risk for flooding and took out a flood policy. Or simply avoided living on a coastline knowing that a hurricane will at some time wipe you out. Insurance cannot cover everything because it would be unaffordable if it did. Could you imagine the added expense if flood and earthquake were suddenly added to the home policy?
To say that insurance does not pay is ridiculous. The vast majority of people who have claims are paid promptly and adequately. Do problems arise? Of course, but the media loves to focus on the minority of policyholders who have issues as it sells copy and generates attention. Whether we like it or not, the policy is written to exclude flood loss and can not be changed after the fact.
By the way, flood insurance is a federally controlled program that is only serviced by insurance companies. Insurance companies do not make any policy decisions in regards to it and the industry has been trying for years to get Congress to modernize the program.
B Randall, SD (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:54:36 PM)
It seems to me that insurance companies should be joining in the rest of the country to help these people out. Every statement going out right now should tell people that their payment this month is going directly to Katrina Relief. It should give the option of donating. Why can't the companies simply help people by giving them back every dime they've ever paid into their policy? I don't know much about operating a business, but these things seem like pretty small things to help people who are in need. I think it's very clear that at the very least, we all need to be praying, and giving of ourselves. It's easy to point fingers at insurance companies, but who of us has actually been of help to these people?
Rochelle, Grove City, PA (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:54:45 PM)
Insurance Companies are like Politicians, To get what they want they will pat you on the back, lie to you, Pick your pocket and when your down, Stomp you in your face. I am 66 years old and from experience I know this for a fact. If any of you scum bags read this you know what you can do.
Pete Royal (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:56:02 PM)
This is no surprise. As another person posted earlier, I also went with only the minimum required by law on insurance. I feel like this...Why pay to these big insurance companies what I could be saving myself. Especially when they can choose whether or not to pay a claim. Think about this...what if all these lawsuits really do put a big company like Nationwide out of business? What happens to those people who have been paying insurance premiums for years? Basically their insurance is no longer valid and available and all that money they paid to that company is gone. I've had friends who went with smaller insurance companies for car insurance that went belly up and they were forced to go to another company with all that money they paid in going belly up with that insurance company. It's like buying a dead horse. Why do it? I also have a family member who can't even get insurance. She has been turned down by every one she could afford and the one's that do approve her have rates so high she can't afford them. We live in a state that requires insurance. What about those that can't get it much less afford it? I feel like if they are going to make us have it then they should have these insurance companies have a basic policy that is available to everyone at the same price.
AJ Can, Florida (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:56:24 PM)
Rita victims are quite similar to those of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. We owned a beach home on the coast of Southwest Louisiana. Our insuror, Louisiana Citizen's Coastal Fair Plan, has determined the very same scenario as those in Southwest Mississippi. "All damages were directly related to storm surge". There is absolutely no factual evidence that this premise is true. In fact, the National Weather Service in Lake Charles, LA specifically stated that hurricane winds topping 125 mph were blowing for 12 hours in advance of the rising water. Let alone the more than 62 tornadoes reported by some weather services that struck the area (some reports are over 140 tornadoes). How can any person in his right mind tell me with a clear conscience and a true heart that only surge did the damage? How can this very weak and hateful determination justify claims denial??? It sickens me to think that an industry can weild such power and victimize an area that has already suffered so much. Then to top it all off, our premiums escalated 170% last year due to immense losses in Florida! Ironic, I'd say! One day, a reaconing may come to their houses, I sure hope they have the "proper" coverage then! No defense attorney can help them then my friends!
Bewildered, Lafayette, LA (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:56:55 PM)
I will be curious to see the outcome of these litigations; much sympathy for those who have been affected by Katrina. I would also be curious to know how many were offered coverage for such perils but declined because they didn't feel something like this could happen, or, they didn't want to pay the extra premium. Property on or near the coast faces different exposure and risk than other property and should be properly insured, regardless of how a property is zoned.
Dan Smith, Decatur, IL (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:57:10 PM)
The remarks of Stacey and Danielle are also worthy of respect....it's not 100 percent the insurance industry's fault, for sure....
Philip M. Brown, Macon, GA (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:57:17 PM)
Let's face it, the insurance industry is full of corporations held by private stock holders. They are there to make a profit, not lose money. The only way to change this is state sponsored insurance. I am not an advocate of this, but maybe it solves all our insurance ills. Truth be told, everyone who buys insurance better have the wherewithall to understand that flood is not covered - not here in Seattle, or in Hurrican stricken New Orleans. If you want coverage, pay for it. Now everyone else in the country gets to pay for insurance claims to those who choose to live in Hurricane zones. I for one, live in Washington were there are not Hurricanes. I chose a house on the hills to avoid flooding and volcano lahars. I do live in an Earthquake zone, but I pay for supplemental earthquake insurance. Not cheap, but I don't want to come crying to all the hard working Americans who live outside the earthquake zone when my house is destroyed in the big one. I feel for the devistating losses suffered in the South, it was painful to watch on TV, I donated to the Red Cross. We live in America where we are supposed to have the chance to make our own lives. Unfortunately in situations like this, most are forced to pay for the choices made by others - so who is the real victim. The person who lived in a known hurricane zone, by the coast under a flood wall - or the person who mitigated his losses, yet still gets to pay? Something to think about while you write your homeowners check next year.
David S, Seattle, Wash (Sent Apr 3, 2006 2:59:42 PM)
In 2004, Hurricane Charley destroyed 35% of my S. Florida housel An adjuster came 10 days later & 10 months later my house was better than new when we reoccupied!Nationwide Insursance did it ALL!They even obtained the contractor!!Can't beat that for coverage!!
Barry Snider Port Charlotte FL (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:03:03 PM)
When the insurance companies exhibit a consistent pattern of trying to delay and deny claims to save money, the CEO should be arrested on racketeering charges. The american people do not have to sit by idly and watch their brothers and sisters be mistreated by corporations.
Ken, Tampa, FL (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:03:22 PM)
To a dying breed...where are the "safe" zones to live in? West Coast? Earthquakes & Fire. Midwest? tornadoes. East Coast - hurricanes, blizzards. Insurance companies insure the risk and we all buy insurance gambling that nothing serious will happen to us. When it does? We have insurance? Or do we?
God Bless my family and friends recovering from Katrina and all of those wonderful people that continue to help out!
Cheryl Rohde, Fox River Grove, IL (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:03:33 PM)
Check out The Hartford Ins. Co. According to C. Reports , It is the best paying of all Ins. companies. From experience, State Farm and Allstate is sorry!!!!
Floyd Royal (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:04:16 PM)
The whole point of insurance is to put you at the same position that you were at the time of loss.
Chantel Turner, Warner Robins GA (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:08:10 PM)
I live in Northeast Florida and my roof was extensively damaged last year. I called Allstate, who has been my carrier for over twenty years, who sent an adjustor out. They made me an offer based on a $100 a square (100 square foot of roof). $100 a square isnt enough. Try finding a roofer after a storm for a $100.00 a Square.
They did cut me a check for about 75 percent of the repair cost. I will say that I have my house appraised every year and adjust all my insurance values accordingly. I also bought replacement value which did help a lot.
In talking with the adjustor, part of the problem was that many people were simply underinsured. Property values have gone up so fast around here that many people were amazed when the checks were so low.
The one thing that did disturb me was an attempt to charge a separate deductible for each storm. We were initially told we would have had to pay three deductibles if the Florida Insurance Commissioner hadnt made things clear.
Overall Allstate didn't do a bad job for us. However, Any company is going to interpret the contract to limit their out of pocket cost. It creates a situation where there are long delays for people who cant afford them. Maybe the answer is to have insurance commission hearings on classes or types of claims for disasters and if the company unfairly persists in denying a claim approved they pay double
John Marbles (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:08:55 PM)
It has been 20 years since I had a bad experience with Nationwide and just the name sets me off. I had uninsured motorist coverage on my car and when it was hit by an uninsured motorist, Nationwide would not send an adjuster to appraise the damages. I had to have a lawyer contact them and threaten them with a loss of faith law suit. Only then did they send an adjuster out to the auto body shop and when they sent the check, they mailed it to the lawyer and not me. Nationwide is not on your side. Any time I am asked about insurance coverage I always tell the person who not to get.
Donna Dugas, Johnston, RI (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:09:36 PM)
I see nothing happening here that's unexpected. After all, almost all insurance companies business models are designed around the idea that their policies will be purchased by people who will make their decision to buy based upon the insurance company's radio and TV advertisements and/or what the insurance company's local agent tells them. It's only when a policy holder files a claim that his insurance company's true face will become visible. Is it really surprising that in the vast majority of cases that face is totally different than what the TV ads and the local agent said it was?
James Conatser, Smyrna, TN (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:10:51 PM)
wind vs flood, that is the question, yes the insurance companies should pay for damage caused by wind, but we have known that flood is not covered by your homeowners policy. Read your policies. the problem does not ly with the insurance companies but the insurance commissioners that approve these types of policies. The commisioners approve the type of policy that is written in your state. these people have their hands in the insurance companies pockets, speak to your local rep. to make some law changes where, you have a say.
Mike, Maryland (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:10:57 PM)
It is painfully obvious that most of the posters here have no factual knowledge of the insurance industry, policies nor claims handling. Having been in the industry for many years now and knowing hundreds of people in the industry, I know of NO - 0 examples of an adjuster being told to deny something because the claim will cost too much. Maybe some small regional carrier, but NONE of the major carriers do this as a business practice. They are denying (a small percentage of the total claims in reality) due to the fact that they really believe them to be excluded due to tidal forces, not because they don't want to pay for your house and they are mean. Stop listening to what uninformed people say, it only adds to the false information that is already out there. Sorry for your loss, but there is no insurance policy, nor carrier that covers everything for everyone. There are risks in life.
Chris A - San Antonio, Texas (Sent Apr 3, 2006 3:11:23 PM)
SEND A COMMENT
PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.