Katrina victims lose in appeals court

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
Is anyone surprised by this? :smh:

Katrina victims lose in appeals court

NEW ORLEANS - Hurricane Katrina victims whose homes and businesses were destroyed when floodwaters breached levees in the 2005 storm cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The case could affect thousands of rebuilding residents and business owners in Louisiana. Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute in New York, said in June that a ruling against the industry could have cost insurers $1 billion.

"This event was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written," Judge Carolyn King wrote for a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As a result, the panel found those who filed the suit "are not entitled to recover under their policies," she said.

More than a dozen insurance companies, including Allstate and Travelers, were defendants.

The decision overturns a ruling by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who in November sided with policyholders arguing that language excluding water damage from some of their insurance policies was ambiguous.

Duval said the policies did not distinguish between floods caused by an act of God — such as excessive rainfall — and floods caused by an act of man, which would include the levee breaches following Katrina's landfall.

But the appeals panel concluded that "even if the plaintiffs can prove that the levees were negligently designed, constructed, or maintained and that the breaches were due to this negligence, the flood exclusions in the plaintiffs' policies unambiguously preclude their recovery."

"Regardless of what caused the failure of the flood-control structures that were put in place to prevent such a catastrophe, their failure resulted in a widespread flood that damaged the plaintiffs' property," and policies clearly excluded water damage caused by floods, King wrote.

This was a consolidated case, including about 40 named plaintiffs, including Xavier University, and more than a dozen insurance companies. It is just one of the cases pending in federal court over Katrina damage. The Army Corps of Engineers faces thousands of claims for damage resulting after the levees breached; King noted in her opinion that dozens more cases, some consolidated and involving property owners suing insurers, are pending in federal court in New Orleans.

Allstate spokesman Mike Siemienas said the Illinois-based company is pleased with the court's findings. Several other attorneys, on both sides of the case, did not immediately return telephone messages or declined comment.
 
Link the Source of this Article. I want to show it to other people without having to send them to BGOL.
 
This case reached an unfortunate result for those policy holders. But the appeals court is probably right. The policies excluded damage caused by flooding. Plaintiffs argued and the District Court agreed that the policy was "ambiguous" ... or unclear as to the cause of the flood.

Painful as it may be and unfortunate for policy holders as it is -- I tend to agree with the Court of Appeals - the policy is not "unclear", floods from whatever source is excluded under those policies. I think plaintiffs lawyers made a damn good attempt at arguing that the policies are unclear. Perhaps if the policy had stated various "flood causes" (i.e., flooding by leakage of sewer or overflowing stormwater drains, etc.) as being excluded by the policy, plaintiffs might have had a better argument if flooding by failure of levee was not listed among the stated exclusions. Such flooding, therefore, not being listed among the exclusions arguably would have been covered under the policy. The policy, however, didn't list any flooding causes; it simply said damage by flooding which, presumably, a reasonable person would understand to mean flooding by whatever cause.

QueEx

P.S.

Of course, if the policy actually defined the term "flooding" (the news article doesn't tell us that), I might have a different opinion, depending on the language of the definition. By defining the term "flood" the policy may have provided exceptions or the definition may have caused an ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the termed was defined in the contracts submitted for judicial review, which was smart. The reason why the writers and underwriters went through so much trouble with flooding is because they knew that NO was an accident waiting to happen. So did the CIty, State & Federal planners, as well as many of the residents.
 
Back
Top