Claims And Issues

KAISER HEALTH PODCAST: GETTING TO "YES" WHEN INSURER SAYS "NO."

Hurricane Season has begun in Florida.  We are still in the grip of a plague called COVID-19.  This Kaiser Health News Podcast by Dan Weissman, published June 14, 2021, explores the ways of Getting to "Yes" When Your Insurance Company Says "NO" to Your Claim.

We don't often link to podcasts on this blog, but this one is an exception to the rule in many ways.

P.S.  You can ignore the customary "Cookies" disclaimer and keep reading or listening.  I did.

Please read the disclaimer.  This blog article ©2021 Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

WIND 2019: LET THE CONFERENCE BEGIN!

On its website, the Windstorm Insurance Network (WIND) describes itself as "the only member association to bring together both defense and policyholder professionals to connect, learn, and engage on important topics in the property/windstorm insurance claims industry."  I will be taking a look myself this week.

Starting tomorrow, Thursday the last day of January in 2019, and scheduled to continue on Friday, February 1, 2019, I will be attending the sessions I signed up for a couple of months ago.  They include catastrophe claims handling and Hurricane damages coverages.  I would like to meet up with many participants especially the defense and policyholder professionals that make up the announced membership of WIND, in other words, the people who represent the people who make and deny insurance claims every day but especially after Hurricanes and earthquakes and wildfires.

The 20th Annual Windstorm Insurance Conference is set for Jan. ​30 - Feb. 2, 2019 at the Walt Disney ​Dolphin Resort.  (I will not be staying there.  I will drive back and forth from my home in the Orlando area.  It's a lot less expensive.)

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Webinars Continue FREE for Florida Bar Consumer and Tenant Lawyers!

The third webinar is coming up soon in the Public Interest Law Section's (soon to be the Equal Justice Law Section) Consumer and Tenant Working Group’s 2018 Webinar Series. This third training in four is Lender Force - Placed Insurance Litigation on Tuesday, September 25, 2018 from noon to 1:00 p.m. EST.  These webinars offer Florida Bar-approved CLE credits and are intended for consumer and tenant attorneys.  Here is the link to register:   https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6433230832791616514.

Did I mention that this webinar is free?

Thanks for your interest!

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Lenders and Other Mortgagees Withholding Insurance Carrier's Payment of Loss.

          There is a recurring issue in the current handling of homeowner's and other property insurance claims.  It comes up over and over again:  Whether the insurance company's payment on a loss under its first-party policy can be taken by the mortgagor and applied to anything it wants -- such as its own bank account, whether the insurance company's payment on the loss should be applied to restoration or repair of the property that is collateral for the mortgage?

Resolution of this question always or nearly always depends on the terms of the mortgage.  By those terms, the bank, mortgage company, other lenders, or their assignees are made loss payees "ATIMA."  This means that the insurance company must put them on the check "as their interests may appear."  Since their names are on the insurance policy, their names will be on the check.  The check cannot be negotiated without their signature or consent, in other words, in terms of the way things work under a mortgage.

    In reality, of course, the homeowners-borrowers are the first ones to sign the insurance company's check paying on the loss, then they turn the check over to the mortgagee so as to apply the proceeds to restore or repair the property, i.e., the homeowners' home.

    Except that very often they don't.  The mortgagee keeps the money.  Their only defense under the mortgage is that restoration or repair of the property is not required when two things both happen.  First, the restoration or repair is not "economically feasible."  Second, "the Lender's security" is "lessened."   This is what the standard uniform mortgage instrument approved and issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac says on their websites.

          The standard language of the UNIFORM INSTRUMENT approved by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for Single-Family homes in Florida is representative of the same standard language found in mortgages across the United States.  Paragraph 5 of the Florida uniform mortgage form addresses this issue:

Unless Lender and Borrower otherwise agree in writing, any insurance proceeds, whether or not the underlying insurance was required by Lender, shall be applied to restoration or repair of the Property, if the restoration or repair is economically feasible and Lender’s security is not lessened.[1]

    Exactly the same language was at issue in Alvarez-Mejia v. Bellissimo Properties, LLC, a 2016 2-to-1 decision by a panel of Florida's Third District Court of Appeal in an appeal from the entry of summary judgment for Bellissimo, a defendant and a mortgagee.[2]

          The term, "economically feasible," is not defined in the Uniform Mortgage Instrument, and of course it was not defined in the mortgage at bar, either.  That was the key to the outcome.

          The plaintiff homeowner put on evidence through her affidavit "that it is economically feasible to repair the property because the value of the property with repairs will be significantly greater than the outstanding balance of the mortgage."[3]  The mortgagee-movant Bellissimo did not put on any proof otherwise at or any time after it filed its motion for summary judgment.  It "did not provide an estimate of the value of the property after repairs, and therefore did not meet its burden of proof that no genuine issue of material fact exists."[4]

          The appellate panel therefore reversed a summary judgment which the trial court entered in favor of the lenders' assignees, Bellissimo Properties, LLC and Vista Goebel, LLC in this case.  On the facts, the panel already made clear that there were genuine issues of material fact that prevented the lenders' assignees from obtaining a summary judgment.

    On the law, the majority in the state court case was willing to allow the possibility that a jury could determine that repair of the property that increases "the value of the property with repairs will be significantly greater than the outstanding balance of the mortgage."[5]

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

 

[1] Paragraph 5 of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Form 3010 01/01 FLORIDA--Single Family at page 7 (emphasis added).

[2] Alvarez-Mejia v. Bellissimo Prop's, LLC, 208 So. 3d 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).  Paragraph 5 of Ms. Lily Alvarez-Mejia's mortgage is identical to paragraph 5 of the Uniform Mortgage Instrument quoted in the text.  See Alvarez-Mejia, 208 So. 3d at 798.

          Bellissimo also "withheld the insurance proceeds" pursuant to section 11 of the mortgage.  The majority mentioned this once, as a fact, and then never mentioned it again, nor did they ever quote it.  Alvarez-Mejia, 208 So. 3d at 798.  The dissenting judge neither quoted nor mentioned paragraph 11 of the mortgage, at all.

          Paragraph 11 of the UNIFORM INSTRUMENT relates to "Assignment of Miscellaneous Proceeds; Forfeiture."   Paragraph 11 of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Form 3010 01/01 FLORIDA--Single Family at page 10 (boldface in original).  Paragraph 5 of the UNIFORM INSTRUMENT, titled "Property Insurance," was the provision which contained the language at issue in the case.

[3] Alvarez-Mejia, 208 So. 3d at 799.

[4] Alvarez-Mejia, 208 So. 3d at 799.

[5] Alvarez-Mejia, 208 So. 3d at 799 (emphasis added).

IT IS THE POLICY NOT TO SEAL OR REDACT.

In this dec action revolving around insurance coverage issues, the plaintiff  insurance company suing for a declaration of no coverage under a homeowner's policy, stipulated with the defendants-policyholders to stay the proceedings and to seal the part of the insurance policy that the plaintiff itself attached to its complaint for a declaratory judgment. 

The Court giveth and the Court taketh away here.

The Court granted the stipulated motion to stay after setting a hearing because, even though the parties joined together to request a stay, their pleadings were insufficient to plead relief.

However, their joint motion to seal was denied.  The parties together failed in their attempt to show good cause for sealing the entire policy that is attached to the complaint.  The coverage issues in the case arise in large measure from that insurance contract.  That makes it a "dispositive" pleading, directly related to the claims in this case.

So, despite the stipulation to conceal the policy, and although the Court authorized the defendant insurance company to remove the exhibit from the record and to refile a new exhibit after removing personal identifying information from it, nonetheless on this record all the other forms and endorsements of the insurance policy will in short be public records when the policy is refiled in the Court file, unless and until good cause for sealing it is shown.  See Kemper Independence Ins. Co. v. Wells, No.: 1:17-cv-01612-AWI-SAB, 2018 WL 558791 (E.D. Cal. January 25, 2018).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2018 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved. 

APPRAISAL NOT A HURDLE TO FLORIDA STATUTE'S CIVIL REMEDY NOTICE.

In an appeal from Seminole County, Florida, two judges of the Fifth District Court of Appeal agreed in Landers v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., No. 5D15–4032, 2017 WL 3443077 (Fla. 5th DCA August 11, 2017) (STATED NOT RELEASED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION AND SO SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL), that the onset of Florida's "Bad Faith" statute was not delayed by the insurance policy before the court in that case.

In Landers, the Florida court was confronted with a homeowner's insurance policy provision requiring an appraisal in the event of a dispute over value.  The policy's appraisal provision is reproduced in footnote 3 of the majority opinion on appeal.

The appraisal provision applied to a dispute over the claim's value, in essence.  The insurance policy did not make appraisal a condition precedent to coverage, and it did not raise a bar to suing the carrier under a statute or otherwise for bad faith or unfair dealing until after an appraisal process was finished.

Resting its analysis on the Florida statute, neither does the Florida "Bad Faith" Statute make completing the appraisal process a condition precedent, the majority held.  The policyholder in that case was permitted to proceed with a civil remedy notice of insurer violation which he had filed under the statute even before the appraisal process was completed.

Parenthetically, the one judge who dissented did not file a reported opinion.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Related articles

Video Displays "Lender Force-placed Insurance Practices".

HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW.

In Jones v. Americas Ins. Co., 226 So. 3d 537 (La. Ct. App., 1st Cir., 2017), the Louisiana appellate court held that a homeowner's insurance carrier had no right of action against its insured's contractor for negotiating a check without the mortgage lender's/servicer's authorized endorsement.

The mortgagee was the mortgage lender/servicer and it did not authorize a stamped endorsement on the insurance company's check, accompanied by handwritten words which "endorsed" payment of the check over to the contractor.

As a result of this episode, the carrier had to reissue the check.  The homeowner's carrier accordingly sued the contractor claiming that this episode thereby damaged it to at least the tune of the amount of the duplicate check.

In particular, the Louisiana appellate court ruled that the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law invoked by the carrier in this case was expressly actionable only by the Louisiana Insurance Commissioner and that the carrier was not an intended beneficiary of the act even if the court tried to imply a cause of action not expressed in the Louisiana statute.

This result may be so in Louisiana, but in other places, as the song goes, it ain't necessarily so.

The appellate court affirmed the Louisiana trial court's judgment in favor of the contractor.  The appellate court tacked on the costs of the appeal to be paid by the insurance carrier as well.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

HURRICANES, DEDUCTIBLES, AND EXCLUSIONS.

Hurricane Irma insurance claims keep rising in Florida, but most of these claims will reportedly not be paid by carriers because they will not exceed the standard hurricane deductible.

On the other hand, exclusions may or may not apply even if the claims exceed any applicable deductible.  In Wheeler v. Allstate Ins. Co., 687 F. App'x 757 (10th Cir. 2017) (case involved Utah substantive law), an exclusion in a homeowner's policy did not apply with respect to short-term damage caused by water seeping into the home over weeks, months, or even years.  In this case, the policyholder successfully contested the seepage exclusion with respect to "short-term damage (i.e., damage fully inflicted in 13 days or less) to his cabin[.]"

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"ACTUAL CASH VALUE" AS "REPLACEMENT COST," NOT "WHATEVER THE COST."

The decisions in the case of In re State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 872 F.3d 567 (8th Cir. 2017), came out of a hailstorm.

The storm struck Ms. Amanda LaBrier's home in St. Louis, Missouri, damaging the home's exterior roof, siding, and gutters.  She made a claim under her homeowner's policy with State Farm.  The policy provided "Coverage A - Dwelling" property insurance coverage on a "replacement cost" basis. "Until actual repair or replacement is completed," however, the policy provided that the carrier would pay "only the actual cash value at the time of the loss of the damaged part of the property," but not more than "the cost to repair or replace the damaged part."  In that instance, the policy was in essence on a "replacement cost" basis for an "actual cash value."

State Farm made Ms. LaBrier an offer which she could -- and did -- refuse.  State Farm was ready to pay the policy requirement of "actual cash value" which in this case included an element of depreciation to account for the age of Ms. LaBrier's roof before it was shot with hail pellets. 

Ms. LaBrier apparently thought that she could do better than that, because she rejected State Farm's offer, hired a family friend to replace the roof, and sent State Farm the bill for the whole thing.  The trial court ruled in her favor, effectively equating "replacement cost" with whatever-it-costs even though the policy limited the carrier's obligation to pay "actual cash value" for any replacement.  The district court accordingly denied State Farm's motion to dismiss.  In a separate order, the district court overruled State Farm's objections to answering voluminous interrogatories about the claims of "putative class members."

Only later did the trial court also enter an order certifying a class of similarly situated State Farm policyholders.

The appellate court reversed the trial court's with directions to dismiss Ms. LaBrier's coverage claim and thereby to deny her motion to certify a class of State Farm homeowners to whom State Farm denied allegedly similar coverage claims.

The procedural posture of this appeal is interesting.  The trial court's denial of State Farm's motion to dismiss was never appealed, apparently.  The appellate court tells us that State Farm appealed two things in two appellate proceedings.  First, State Farm petitioned for a writ of mandamus that the district court "vacate what it alleges are overly-burdensome [sic] discovery orders."  In re State Farm, 872 F.3d at 571.

State Farm's second appeal was its only other appeal in this case, and it did not request appellate review of the trial court's order denying State Farm's motion to dismiss in this second appeal, either.  State Farm's second appeal in this case came when it requested and the Eighth Circuit granted "State Farm leave to appeal the class certification," which the Eighth Circuit thereafter consolidated with State Farm's other appeal, the State Farm petition for a writ of mandamus. In re State Farm, 872 F.3d at 572.

When the appellate panel reversed the class certification order it also reversed the district court's order denying State Farm's motion to dismiss.  You might have thought that the appellate panel would also naturally grant State Farm's mandamus petition since the panel "vacated" the lower court's orders "upholding premature classwide discovery[.]"  If you thought that, as I did, then you and I would both be wrong.  After saying that it vacated the lower court's discovery orders, thereafter the panel concluded its opinion with these other words:  "In light of this disposition [i.e., dismissal], State Farm's petition for a writ of mandamus is denied as moot."  In re State Farm, 872 F.3d at 577.

Go figure.

____________________________________________________________________________

Mark your Calendar!

You and your clients can sign up for health insurance starting next week on November 1, 2017 at https://www.healthcare.gov.

 

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

NOTE TO HARVEY, IRMA & MARIA: "FLOOD" INCLUDES BROKEN WATER MAIN.

A first-party property insurance policy containing both specified perils or multiperils coverages, and specified perils or multiperils exclusions, if you will, was not rendered ambiguous as a result, in Comley v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., NO. 2016-CA-001305-MR, 2017 WL 4448528 (Ky. Ct. App. October 6, 2017; Stated Not Final And Not to be Cited As Authority in Kentucky Courts).

The facts of that case center around a water main outside the plaintiff's property.  The water main broke and inundated plaintiff's-policyholder's house and personal property with damage.  Kentucky's intermediate appellate court held that the water damage exclusion for a "flood" did not require natural causes in order for the exclusion to apply.

Accordingly, the policy at bar was not ambiguous and the policyholder's claimed damage was excluded "water damage," the Kentucky Court of Appeals held in that case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2018 OPEN ENROLLMENT RUNS FROM NOVEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 15.  READY?

If you or your clients do not have health insurance coverage, check out and sign up at www.healthcare.gov.

You may not have heard the word that health care coverage is available -- right now, today, even as you read these words.  It's your right.  It's the law of the land!

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

"OCCURRENCE" GIVEN SAME INTERPRETATION UNDER HOMEOWNER'S POLICY AND CGL POLICIES.

In Westfield Ins. Co. v. Davis, 232 F. Supp. 3d 918 (S.D. W. Va. 2017), it was held under West Virginia law and the unambiguous liability section of a homeowner's insurance policy, that insureds' mistaken harvesting of trees on property of another person was not an accident, and so was not a covered occurrence.

This decision is in line with the great majority of decisions under comprehensive general liability (CGL) policies that an occurrence is an accident neither expected nor intended by the insured, which many CGL policies now expressly provide.  That is exactly the approach taken by the Davis court under the homeowner's insurance policy at issue in this case in West Virginia.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

ALTERNATIVE HEALTH CARE POLICIES AND PROPOSALS.

Much has been written lately about the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare."  Once the ACA is repealed, the question of course becomes what will replace it. 

Insurance Claims and Issues Blog will take a look at four of the main replacement proposals and the health care policies behind them, drawing on the far more granular observations in the easily understandable essay by Allison K. Hoffman, "The Unhealthy Return to Individual Responsibility in Health Policy" published on January 16, 2017 on RegBlog, the University of Pennsylvania Blog on Regulation.

We begin with a look at Health Savings Accounts (HSA's).

Health Savings Accounts are not insurance policies.  Nor are they health plans.  Rather, they are financial instruments.  HSA's are available as a matter of choice right now.  If HSA's are made to replace the Affordable Care Act, presumably their tax benefits will be expanded beyond the present level of tax benefits they afford, so as to make them even more attractive to health insurance policyholders.

HSA's are maintained by individuals like savings accounts in a bank.  The individual deposits money in the HSA, just as in a savings account, except that in the case of an HSA the money is to be used for health care.

HSA's enjoy tax advantages right now.  Currently the Internal Revenue Service "stipulates that these accounts must be paired with a high deductible plan -- at least a $2,600 deductible -- and have a maximum annual contribution of $6,750 for family coverage in 2017."  Allison K. Hoffman, supra.

So, the reason that an HSA is attractive to anyone is that it affords tax savings.  The purpose of the tax savings is to encourage saving for medical expenses.  If a person saves her money "for a rainy day" in an HSA, or in this case, saves her money in an HSA to pay medical bills, then she will either be able to spend that money on out-of-pocket health expenses, tax free, or at least get a tax break for her HSA deposits.

The health care policy at work behind HSA's is clear:  HSA's are offered to attract individuals who may be responsible enough to manage their health care expenses, by providing a tax incentive to save for them.  This may be true for people who are fortunate to have enough money to deposit in the HSA's.

How large a set of persons the health care policy may reach, however, remains to be demonstrated.  In the meantime, it may legitimately be asked of HSA's, "what if any benefit is there for a person whose tax reduction if any would have no effect on their household budget?"  What difference would it make not paying taxes on out-of-pocket medical expenses, if there is no food on the table, no fuel for the heater, or gasoline in the car (if there is a car at all)?

This kind of jumps the gun, however.  The first question to ask is how many people can afford to make deposits in health savings accounts in the first place?

Where are the numbers to answer these questions?  Once the answers are proffered to support HSA's as an actual, viable alternative health care proposal, what are the numbers based on?

Answers to these and other questions should be found first, before HSA's become the law.  Unless we want to base the law on speculation without evidence.  That would not be stepping backward.  In the final analysis, that would be law supported only by force, without any reason for public obedience.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

HOMEOWNER'S EXCLUSIONS TRUMP HOMEOWNER'S ROOF COLLAPSE CLAIM.

In Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689 (10th Cir. 2016), both the Tenth Circuit and the District Court needed only a little evidence to apply standard homeowner's policy exclusions and deny all coverage to the policyholders' roof collapse claim.

The loss.

Eugene and Diane Gallegos owned a home in Colorado.  Their home "suffered a partial roof collapse."  It was not disputed that the roof collapsed after snow and ice accumulated on the roof.   Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 690 (10th Cir. 2016).

The Gallegoses were not the first owners of the house.  There was evidence in the record that the aged framing system was not strong enough to support the weight of the heavy snow.

This evidence came from the testimony of the Gallegoses' own expert engineer.  See Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 692 (10th Cir. 2016).   The engineer also testified that in his professional opinion the roof was in no condition to support the weight of the snow before the roof collapsed, whether or not Mr. Gallegos 'made modifications' or the pre-existing roof was untouched.  In either case, he testified, "'the wood was very damaged or deteriorated, however you want to put it.'"  The roof would not hold whether the wood was original to the house or not.    See Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 692-93 (10th Cir. 2016).

The relevant exclusions.

The Gallegoses' homeowner's policy contained several standard exclusions "for wear and tear; deterioration; and faulty design, construction, repair, and maintenance."  Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 693-94 (10th Cir. 2016).

The policy also contained a standard anti-concurrent cause exclusion.  "That provision states that the policy does 'not cover loss caused directly or indirectly by any of [the specifically excluded perils]. Such loss is excluded regardless of any other cause or event contributing concurrently or in any sequence to the loss.'”  Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 693 (10th Cir. 2016).

The anti-concurrent cause exclusion barred all coverage for the roof collapse.

The appellate and trial courts gave great weight in this case to the homeowner's policy's anti-concurrent cause exclusion.  Although there does not appear to have been much if any evidence that the Gallegoses somehow failed to maintain the roof "framing system," there was the opinion testimony of their own engineering expert that "faulty design, construction, repairs and maintenance" so that in the eyes of the Tenth Circuit there was improper maintenance or construction which was excluded, not to mention undisputed evidence of wear and tear, and deterioration.

The Tenth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment of no coverage here on the ground that improper construction or maintenance or both contributed to collapse of the Gallegoses' roof, and thus exclusions in insurance policy combined with the anti-concurrent cause exclusion to preclude the homeowners' recovery in this case.   Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 693 (10th Cir. 2016).

The wear and tear exclusion applies to normal wear and tear.

The Gallegoses argued that their homeowner's carrier could not rely on the wear and tear exclusion in the policy because there was no evidence that the wear and tear to the framing system supporting their roof was "abnormal" wear and tear.

The Tenth Circuit ruled that the standard wear and tear exclusion in the homeowner's policy at bar does not require evidence of abnormal wear and tear.  Accordingly, the carrier did not need to prove that wear and tear contributing to homeowners' roof damage was abnormal in order to rely upon the wear and tear exclusion in that case.  Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 694 (10th Cir. 2016).

The carrier's disclaimer letter raised the relevant exclusions.

Further, the courts held that the homeowner's insurer's disclaimer letter denying all coverage was adequate to the task of raising and reserving each of the relevant exclusions on which the carrier relied to deny the homeowners any coverage.  Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 695 (10th Cir. 2016).

The letter itself was quoted or summarized at pages 691-92 and in footnote 2 on page 691 of the Tenth Circuit's opinion.  In general terms, the disclaimer letter in this case went well beyond any general reservation of any exclusions which may come to the carrier's attention at any time.  The letter in this case mentioned all the relevant exclusions as grounds for denying all coverage, the main one being the policy's anti-concurrent cause exclusion.

The exclusions could not be waived by the carrier by its conduct here.

Under the applicable law, the insurance carrier could waive a forfeiture of coverage which was otherwise available under the policy (such as in the case of a violation of a policy condition like notice, for example), but it did not waive any exclusions from coverage which did not exist even if its disclaimer letter might not mention them.  This is the rule under Colorado law which applied to this case, wrote the Tenth Circuit.  Gallegos v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 646 F. App'x 689, 695 (10th Cir. 2016).

It is also the prevailing rule in other jurisdictions far from Colorado, including Florida for example.

The lessons to be drawn from this decision are pretty clear, including that the anti-concurrent cause exclusion is a weapon of mass exclusion as it were.  Another lesson to be drawn here is that coverage decisions in one part of the United States often reflect coverage outcomes in other cases in other parts of the United States.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2016 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

DUTY TO ASSESS LOST VALUE TO HOMEOWNERS IN GEORGIA.

A homeowner's carrier has a duty to assess the value that homeowners lose because of physical damage to their homes, even if their homes are repaired.  In Thompson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:14-CV-32 (MTT), 2016 WL 951537 (M.D. Ga. March 9, 2016), the District Court certified a class of Georgia homeowners who are alleging a claim that State Farm, their homeowner's carrier, did not assess the value lost in their homes.  The lead plaintiffs in particular successfully presented a claim for water damage after pipe burst in their home.  State Farm paid for repair of the damage under their homeowner's policy.  They were told by State Farm, however, that their policy did not cover "diminished value."  Their policy was allegedly the carrier's standard contract, common to the members of the Georgia class, and State Farm takes the position that its standard homeowner's policy simply does not cover diminished value.

Parenthetically, on the same record the Court in that case declined to certify another class consisting of Georgia homeowners pursuing a claim that State Farm had a duty to pay their lost value claims.  The Court determined that such a class of homeowners would require individualized damage determinations, and so no class could be certified on the duty to pay claims.  The duty to assess claims were certified, in contrast, because they present common claims under the same contract for alleged failure of a duty to investigate or assess diminished value.

This may not be as significant a decision as it sounds.  The Court in this case pointed out that in other class action lawsuits other "insurers have admitted their policies cover diminished value."  Thompson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 5:14-CV-32 (MTT), 2016 WL 951537, at *8 n.5 (M.D. Ga. March 9, 2016).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2016 by Dennis J. Wall, author of Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith (3d ed. Thomson Reuters West in 2 Volumes, with Supplements).  See in particular id. Volume 2, § 9:5, "The question of bad faith--Presence or absence of fault" and surrounding sections in which first-party insurance coverage determinations, investigations and "assessments" are discussed at length.  All rights reserved.

CARRYING WATER TO A DISTANT HOME. "WATER" EXCLUSION IN MISSISSIPPI.

A casino in Mississippi owned a barge. The barge cut loose during Hurricane Katrina and crashed into a home, destroying it. The homeowner made an insurance claim under her all-risk homeowner's policy.

When the homeowner's case reached the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Court held that the homeowner's policy exclusion for damage caused by "water" included the damage caused by the casino's barge. Without water the barge could not have floated all the way to the home and so without water there could have been no damage and so without water there was no claim, which is how the Court said as it looked at the situation with dry eyes.

The case is Porter v. Grand Casino of Mississippi, Inc., 181 So. 3d 980 (Miss. 2016).

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2016 by Dennis J. Wall, author of "Insurance Claims and Issues" (forthcoming Thomson Reuters 2016). All rights reserved.

"INSURANCE CLAIMS AND ISSUES," THE BOOK: COMING IN 2016!

 

 Storm Clouds lined up over the Gulf of Mexico.  Photograph and text copyright 2015-2016 by Dennis J. Wall.

I am hard at work on an anthology of the best blogs from "Insurance Claims and Issues."  The anthology I submit to my publisher will keep all hyperlinks intact, including links to the Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law blog.  When articles posted on Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law blog are important to the anthology of "Insurance Claims and Issues," I am including them in the anthology too.

As each previously posted article is updated, the posted articles will remain just as available here as they always have been.  New articles will benefit from me being better informed and better equipped to discuss future insurance claims and issues.

I have contracted with Thomson Reuters (West Publishing Company to those fortunate to have the experience) to publish "Insurance Claims and Issues," the Book, in the late Spring or early Summer of 2016.  Best wishes to everyone for a joyous and Happy New Year!

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2016 by Dennis J. Wall, author of "Insurance Claims and Issues" (forthcoming Thomson Reuters 2016).  All rights reserved.

Related articles

Convincing Anyone Yet? Coverage, Contraception, and the Court.

CYBERINSURANCE:  MANY DATA-LESS RISKS TO UNDERWRITE & PREMIUMS TO CHARGE.

THE ALI RESTATEMENT PROJECT OF THE LAW OF LIABILITY INSURANCE.

Majority Holds No Negligence Cause of Action by Insured Against I.A.

STANDARD MORTGAGE CLAUSE A CONTRACT BETWEEN HOMEOWNER'S INSURER AND MORTGAGEE?

  

 

Image Copyright Dennis J. Wall.

I did not know that there is apparently support in more than one jurisdiction for the proposition that the standard mortgage clause is a separate and distinct contract between the homeowner's insurance company and the homeowner's mortgagee.  My quick and earnest research disclosed that courts in other States say the same thing that I read to this effect in the case of Avila v. Citimortgage, Inc., 801 F.3d 777, 780 n.2 (7th Cir. 2015)(case involved Illinois substantive law).

That came as a surprise.  I always thought that in order to form a contract the law requires two contracting parties.  Here one of the contracting parties seemingly has no interest in an insurance contract for which that party paid a premium, i.e., gave consideration for the contract.  That missing contracting party in the case of the standard-mortgage-clause-as-separate-contract situation is of course the policyholder who is here also the homeowner with a mortgage.

So, the mortgagee which gave no consideration to the insurance company is a party to a contract with the insurance company even though no consideration passed between them?

I can understand if the courts label the mortgagee as an "incidental beneficiary" capable of enforcing the contract under a standard mortgage clause.  But is it correct as a matter of contract law to say in this situation bereft of consideration, that there is a separate and independent contract aside from the insurance policy?

And if there is such a separate and independent contract, what is this agreement all about other than the payment of insurance proceeds to the mortgagee under an insurance contract paid for by someone else, namely, the homeowner?

This whole thing bears a closer look.  Parenthetically, when Judge Sykes wrote the opinion upholding Mr. Avila's complaint for breach of contract against Citi in this case, she carefully pointed out that "[w]e do not, of course, express any view on the ultimate merits of Avila's claim."  Then she proceeded to suggest at least three defenses potentially available to Citi on the ultimate merits of Avila's claim.

Apparently, Judge Sykes was under the impression that Citi and its lawyers needed her help, perhaps thinking that they might overlook those defenses if she did not point them out.

Judge Sykes did not offer any advice at all to Mr. Avila or his lawyers, however.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, author of "Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" (American Bar Association 2015).  All rights reserved.

FLORIDA FREE MARKET RESTRICTIONS MUST COME FROM LEGISLATORS, NOT COURTS.

Hurricane photographed from space.  Image provided by NASA.

So says Florida's First District Court of Appeal in Security First Insurance Co. v. State Office of Insurance Regulation, ___ So. 3d ___, 2015 WL 3824166 (Fla. 1st DCA June 22, 2015), rehearing and certification denied with opinion, ___ So. 3d ___, 2015 WL 6446925 (Fla. 1st DCA October 26, 2015).

Security First Insurance Company filed the lawsuit after the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (i.e., the Florida Insurance Commissioner) denied its request to restrict the freedom of Security First's policyholders to assign post-loss insurance claims without its consent on homeowner's policies issued by Security First.  Homeowners frequently assign claims to contractors to pay for post-loss repairs, for example.  Many policyholders under other insurance policies make post-loss assignments for similar reasons.

In this decision, both in the "merits appeal" and in the later denial of rehearing and certification, the First District pointed to "an unbroken string of Florida cases over the past century holding that policyholders have the right to assign such claims [i.e., post-loss claims] without insurer consent."  The appellate court made it clear that under the time-tested doctrine of separation of powers, it is the Florida Legislature's place to restrict capitalism in Florida in such a case and not the place of the Florida Courts to do so.

The case is discussed in "Court Says Lawmakers Must Sort Out Benefits Issue" p. A12, col.1 (Orlando Sentinel "Business" Section Tuesday, October 27, 2015).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, Co-Author of "Catastrophe Claims / Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (Thomson Reuters May, 2015).  All Rights Reserved.

LEAKING SINK IN UTAH IS EXCLUDED, BUT NOT "MORAL HAZARD."

Streaks on Mars possibly caused by water.  Image by NASA.

In a recent decision, coverage was excluded for damage caused to a cabin in Utah by a sink that leaked for a long time.  The homeowner's policy at issue contained a standard exclusion for damage caused by "seepage or leakage over a period of weeks, months or years … from within, or around any plumbing fixtures."  There was an exemption or exception to the exclusion for "sudden and accidental" escape of water.  The U.S. Magistrate Judge considering the situation held on competing motions for summary judgment that the exclusion applied, that the exception to the exclusion did not apply, that since there was no claim to coverage available there could be no bad faith claim either, and that the insurance company's motion for summary judgment should accordingly be granted.  Wheeler v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2:12-cv-193-BCW, 2015 WL 5714392 (D. Utah. September 29, 2015)(Wells, USMJ).

Allstate's denominated "expert" wrote in her report that the policy exclusion of damage which results from seepage or leakage of water "'is considered a morale [sic] hazard" and so is not covered. 

Balderdash.

Far from inventing an imagined 'drafting history' of the exclusion, the Court applied the plain language of the policy and controlling case law from Utah to reach its conclusion that the exclusion applied to the undisputed material facts in the record.  The Court in Utah also cited and consulted case law decided on similar facts in Michigan and Oregon.

However, the Court never returned to the so-called expert "morale [sic] hazard" testimony of Allstate's expert. 

Anyone that thinks this decision was based on "moral hazard," like the kind of moral hazard perpetrated by investment banks and hedge funds that helped to cause the Great Recession, is not experienced either with insurance coverage or with insurance policies.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, Co-Author of "Catastrophe Claims / Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (Thomson Reuters May, 2015).  All Rights Reserved.

FEWER HOUSING STARTS, FEWER APARTMENT STARTS: FEWER HOMEOWNERS POLICIES?

 

August brought a lower number of new housing starts and also new apartment construction starts everywhere except in the Southern United States.  Construction was down in the Northeast, the Midwest, and the West.  In other words, new housing construction was down in August in all the rest of the United States outside of the South.  "Fewer Starts in Housing, But Analysts Are Upbeat" p. B7, col. 6 (Associated Press copyrighted story published in New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Friday, September 18, 2015).

A home lender's vice president is quoted in the linked report as saying that "[t]his is a mere blip on the radar."  Let's hope so if we want homeowner's insurance policies.  Fewer homes means fewer homeowner's policies in basic and simple terms.  That may increase the cost and limit the availability of renter's insurance, too.  Here's how.

Although even the fact that new construction of apartment buildings decreased, this event does not mean that there will not likely be some kind of insurance to be sold that would cover housing.  Renter's insurance will not likely be totally eliminated simply because renters are going to be renting in existing buildings, rather than renting in new buildings.

The availability of renter's insurance for rented space in old buildings may be limited, however, by the age and condition of older buildings which may present greater risks than new construction.  Or the premiums may be higher.  Either way would present one more burden on people looking for a place to live that they can afford.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, co-author of "Catastrophe Claims:  Insurance Coverage for Natural and Man-Made Disasters" (Thomson Reuters West May 2015).  All rights reserved.  

MORTGAGEE "ATIMA": NO INTERESTS APPEAR, NO PAYMENT.

Where an insurance company paid a fire loss entirely to the homeowner, and the mortgagee was not named in the policy, the mortgagee's interests "did not appear" (no "ATIMA") and so the mortgagee had no claim on the insurance proceeds whatsoever. The Universal Holding: Mortgagee's case dismissed against the insurance company.  The most recent example is provided by Zaghi v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 77 F. Supp. 3d 974, 978 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

The settled rule is discussed, along with related issues, in § 3.10, "What's Behind the Charge of Unnecessary Policies" in Dennis J. Wall, "Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" (The American Bar Association 2015).  "ATIMA" means that the mortgagees' interests are protected under homeowner's policies "as their interests may appear." This provision is usually coupled in the homeowner's policy with a requirement that the mortgagee shall be named on the check in the event that the insurance company pays proceeds under the policy.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  © 2015 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved. No Claim to Original U.S. Government Works.

The "New Normal": Apartments Are US, Homes Are Ventures.

   “More Americans bought homes in May” as the opening of this article says in today's New York Times?  Nope. 

   More houses were sold in May than in April.  Regardless of the article's opening sentence in today's Times, however, they were sold mostly to ventures for rentals.  So, more homes sold, fewer Americans bought them actually.

   Looks like a job for renter's insurance.  Homeowner's insurance in the near future, at least?  Not so much.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2015 by Dennis J. Wall, author of "Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" (American Bar Association 2015).  All Rights Reserved.

Postscript:  The following day the same newspaper published this in an article reporting that rentals are up, home ownership is down:

It's more of a new normal.  We went through a wrenching experience with the biggest housing  bubble and the biggest collapse since 1890.  This is an anxious time.

Robert J. Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University and a Nobel laureate, quoted by Dionne Searcey, "The Landlord Blues" p. B1, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Business Day" Section, Wednesday, June 24, 2015).

Image Copyright Dennis J. Wall 2015.  All rights reserved.

Why is Lender Force-Placed Insurance so Expensive?

   Sorry I did not get this posted on Monday.  Already this is a week.  But it's a good week.

    Lender force-placed insurance is invariably described as 'more expensive than other insurance which the homeowner/borrower could get on their own'.

    Why is LFPI more expensive?

    Why is it not the same premium more or less as the cost of purchasing substitute homeowner's insurance?  (Something which LFPI most certainly is not, on many levels.  One things which prevents it totally from being anything like substitute homeowner's insurance is something which should also make LFPI less expensive:   LFPI provides less coverage than a homeowner's policy.  Another thing which prevents LFPI from being simply another term for substitute homeowner's coverage:  LFPI protects the interests of the lender in the collateral rather than the interests of the homeowner in the home.)

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2015 by Dennis J. Wall, author of "Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" (American Bar Association 2015).  All Rights Reserved.

REVERSE MORTGAGES NEED ATTENTION.

               Reverse Mortgages:  The more we know about them before we sign up for one, the better off we and our clients are.

               A reverse mortgage is a loan.  “A reverse mortgage is a special type of loan that allows homeowners 62 and older to borrow against the accrued equity in their homes.  The loan must be paid back when the borrower dies, moves, or no longer lives in the home.”  Nora David Eisenhower, “Consumer Advisory:  Don’t be Misled by Reverse Mortgage Advertising” (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, posted online on June 4, 2015).

               A reverse mortgage loan is based on home equity.  “The home is pledged as collateral on the loan.”  Gabriela Rico, “Diligence Urged for Homeowners Seeking Reverse Mortgages” (Tucson, Arizona Daily Star posted online May 30, 2015).

               When a reverse mortgage loan is insured by the Federal Government, it is known as a Home Equity Conversion Mortgage or “HECM”.  See Gabriela Rico, “Diligence Urged for Homeowners Seeking Reverse Mortgages” (Tucson, Arizona Daily Star posted online May 30, 2015).

               If the homeowner does not keep up the homeowner’s insurance and any other insurance required by the reverse mortgage loan, the homeowner runs the risk of foreclosure.  Nora David Eisenhower, “Consumer Advisory:  Don’t be Misled by Reverse Mortgage Advertising” (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, posted online on June 4, 2015).   “Tapping into home equity is one of the reasons older people run real risks of foreclosure, warned Lori A. Trawinski, who wrote an AARP Public Policy Institute Report on mortgage debt [‘Nightmare on Main Street:  Older Americans and the Mortgage Market Crisis’],” quoted by Elizabeth Olson, “Paying Off the Mortgage Grows Harder for Older Workers” p. B4, col. 1 (New York Times Nat’l ed., “Personal Business,” Saturday, June 15, 2015).

                For more information, contact these among other possible sites:

 

In the above CFPB Consumer Advisory, these steps are recommended:

 

If you have a question about reverse mortgage requirements, contact a HUD-approved housing counselor near you.

 * * *

For more information about how reverse mortgages work and questions to ask, read our guide to reverse mortgages for older consumers and their families. Do you or a loved one have a reverse mortgage loan? Here are three steps you should take.

 

In the above Arizona Daily Star article, these sites are recommended:

 

Q. Where can I get more information?

A. The National Council on Aging recommends the following sources for more information on using and protecting the value in your home:

• Home Equity Advisor, www.homeequityadvisor.org
• BenefitsCheckUp, www.benefitscheckup.org
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, www.consumerfinance.gov
• The National Reverse Mortgage Lenders Association, www.reversemortgage.org
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, www.hud.gov (type reverse mortgage into the search bar at the top of the page)

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall, author of “Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices” (American Bar Association 2015).  All Rights Reserved.

Related articles

And So, Shall a Magistrate Lead Them to Fairness?

CFPB reports on misleading ads for reverse mortgages

US regulators warn: Ads for reverse mortgages can mislead

No "Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" Cases Have Gone to Trial.

   American Bar Association publishes book presenting the evidence never before available except to the lawyers and their clients in cases that never went to trial.

"Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices" tells the story of a real-life drama, the drama of how American homeownership became a business opportunity for everyone but homeowners.  Lender force-placed insurance is not just for homes, however; it is a part of virtually every loan in the country.

We just may not be aware of it.

Lenders place insurance by force when a loan's collateral is in danger. Borrowers agree to provide collateral to guarantee that they will repay the loan. If the loan is for an automobile, then the automobile is the collateral; if the loan is a mortgage on a home, then the home is the collateral.  In case of damage to the collateral, as a part of the loan the borrower pays for insurance to protect the collateral.

If the borrower does not pay the collateral protection insurance premiums, then as a part of the loan agreement the lender can place insurance by force to protect the collateral and the borrower will pay the premiums for the insurance force-placed by a lender. Those premiums are added to the monthly loan repayment. Borrowers agree that if they do not make the monthly payment, their lenders can foreclose on their homes or repossess their automobiles.

This is where the previously unpublicized, often unseen “lender force-placed insurance practices” come into play.  These practices involve hidden charges like commissions paid to affiliates of the lender which are insurance agents in name only, or reinsurance premiums paid to subsidiaries of the lender.  The insurance company providing the force-placed insurance pays these charges in order to get the business of force-placed insurance.  The charges are silently added to the borrower’s monthly payment.

The facts presented here were learned in a forensic investigation into publicly available information over the course of 3 years. What I mean by “forensic investigation” refers to my examination of the evidence of LFPI practices, which I largely found in Court files.  I concentrated on what the parties testified and what the documents displayed.  I did not put much emphasis on what the attorneys argued in those cases.

My default rule was to rely on the testimony and documents that came from the most knowledgeable source on any given issue. Whenever the issue involved identifying and describing LFPI practices, and the evidence was available, those sources were the testimony and documents provided by the lenders and their affiliates and subsidiaries, by their mortgage servicers, and by the insurance companies which offer the force-placed insurance policies.

No case involving “Lender Force-Placed Insurance Practices” has ever gone to trial.  The evidence is on display in this book and in the Court files of the cases which all came to an end without a trial.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

UPDATE FLASH: FRACKING CAUSES EARTHQUAKES... IN OKLAHOMA IF NOT PENNSYLVANIA.

    In an article posted here on Monday, April 20, 2015, "Is Fracking an Earthquake for Homeowner's Policy Coverage?," I commented on the Acting Insurance Commissioner's position in Pennsylvania to the effect that it is too hard to prove that fracking causes earthquakes.  For that reason, reportedly, the PIA (Pennsylvania Insurance Acting) Commissioner refused to approve a Homeowner's Policy Endorsement adding fracking  to other excluded causes of earthquake damage.

    This position is, to put it charitably, ridiculous.  I wrote on Monday:  "Tell it to Oklahoma."  Today it is reported that the Oklahoma Geological Survey, a branch of the Oklahoma Government, "introduced a website" on which it pronounced that "it 'considers it very likely' that [fracking] wells are causing the majority of the state's earthquakes."  Michael Wines, "Oklahoma Recognizes Role of Drilling in Quakes," p. A16, col. 1 (Wed., April 22, 2015).

    Tell that to the Acting Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2015 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

IS FRACKING AN EARTHQUAKE FOR HOMEOWNER’S POLICY COVERAGE?

               An exclusion for earthquakes caused by fracking, or drilling for oil using hydraulic fracturing to break apart the earth below the surface, has been refused by the Pennsylvania Acting Insurance Commissioner.  See this Insurance Journal report on April 15, 2015 . 

                One of the reasons the Acting PIC gave for her action is that it is too difficult, she says, to prove that fracking causes earthquakes.  This “official pronouncement” appears to be the real reason for rejecting the endorsement in Pennsylvania.

                Tell that to Oklahoma.

                If you are authorized to speak.  Fracking companies settle most fracking damage claims and when they settle, the fracking companies demand secrecy, and they have done this for years.  See Insurance Journal report from June 10, 2013.  Of course, there are many reasons to settle and many reasons to demand secrecy.

                Proof that fracking causes earthquakes does not appear to be an impediment to fracking companies’ settling these claims, however.  The fracking companies and the insurance industry know that fracking causes earthquakes, of course.  It is the reason that fracking companies settle fracking earthquake damage claims.  See Insurance Journal Report on March 23, 2015. 

 Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2015 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

Related articles

Earthquakes, fracking and LA

HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE PREMIUMS way MORE EXPENSIVE IN FLORIDA.

    Those of us who are lucky to live in Florida always knew that we paid more in Homeowner's Insurance premiums than the rest of the nation.

    How much more?

    Try more than double.  See Jeff Harrington, "Homeowners Insurance:  Floridians Pay More Than Double U.S. Average" (Tampa Bay Times, Online Wednesday, January 21, 2015).

    According to figures released by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and discussed in the linked report, Florida is also the first -- and so far, apparently the only -- State in which the average Homeowner's Insurance premium is $2,000.00 or more ($2,084.00 to be precise).  Id.

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2015 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.  No claim to Original Tampa Bay Times or N.A.I.C. works.

 

 

Related articles

Will Citizens Bridge the Force Placed "Gap"?

Florida home insurance most expensive in nation

Is Kevin McCarty Scott's next target? Atwater, Bondi & Putnam say they haven't discussed it

WILL CITIZENS BRIDGE THE FORCE PLACED "GAP"?

"It's probably not addressed as much as it needs to be, but it is a real problem."

Mr. Archie Grant, South Broward (Florida) Board of Realtors, quoted by Dan Sweeney, Sun Sentinel (Ft. Lauderdale), December 16, 2014.

    Mr. Grant was testifying before Florida State Representatives from Broward County, Florida (Ft. Lauderdale) who are members of an insurance subcommittee in the Florida House of Representatives.  He told them about people whose homeowner's insurance policies supposedly lapsed and whose lenders force-placed insurance on them with much higher premiums.   In some cases, Mr. Grant observed, the lenders controlled the force-placing insurance carriers.

    A member of the Broward delegation to the Florida House (and a very scarce commodity in Broward County, a Democrat), reportedly suggested that perhaps Citizens Property Insurance Corporation "'can help bridge that gap until that person can get back into the private marketplace'."  Id.

    The lawmakers are planning to meet with Citizens' representatives this month to discuss their ideas about the increasing costs of wind and flood insurance for Florida residents.

The author is at work on a book on "Lender Force-Placed Insurance" which the American Bar Association has scheduled for publication this Spring. 

The author wishes to thank Mr. Dan Luby of Orlando for alerting me to this story.  Mr. Luby is an avid reader of this insurance blog and his input is always gratefully appreciated.

Copyright 2015 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

LABOR DAY, CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE, SAME MESSAGE: HOME IT.

   On this Labor Day, we are all mindful of the earthquake that just struck California.  In the past, we have been mindful of the Hurricanes that strike the Southeast.  As we work to provide for our families, repair the damage, and build a better home for ourselves and our neighbors, let's take the time in the very near future to do our annual review of our homeowner's coverage.  See Ann Carrns, "After Napa Jolt, Quake-Proofing Your Homeowner's Insurance" p. B5, col. 1 (New York Times Nat'l ed., "Personal Business," Saturday, August 30, 2014).

   Remember Labor on this Day!

Please Read The Disclaimer.  Copyright 2014 by Dennis J. Wall.  All rights reserved.

Related articles

Hurricane Sandy Damage Claims: Whether Homeowners Hurricane Deductibles Apply.

Federal INSURANCE Laws to Preempt STATE Insurance Laws.

Your Money Adviser: After Napa Jolt, Quake-Proofing Your Homeowner's Insurance

3.4-magnitude quake hits near Napa

Strongest quake in 25 years strikes Bay Area