Insurance Companies 1, Flood Victims 0
Paul and Julie Leonard were awarded $1,228 to cover wind damage but lost their argument that their Nationwide Mutual Insurance policy covered flood damage associated with the storm, which they said cost them more than $130,000.
The case has been closely watched by thousands of homeowners who believe damage from floods swept in by Katrina along the U.S. Gulf coast should be covered under policies generally meant to cover hurricane damage.
Of course, this is not by any means the end of the story. There will be more court decisions to come. It is, however, a stark disappointment to those who have been holding out hope that the insurance companies would eventually be forced to pay out for some of the Katrina flood damage in areas where flood insurance was not required.
Stay tuned for further developments...
posted by Sharon Gerald at
5:51 PM
1 Comments:
It really seems to me that there is a difference between a regular flood and Katrina. I guess I am not alone in that belief, but it looks like it is only the naive among us who feel that way.
It is so unfair. I have heard of next door neighbors -- one of whom received money from the insutance company because they had wond damage and the other who received nothing because it was flood damage. There should be some rules and regulations and definitions that everyone agrees on.
By
Nancy A. McKeand, at 6:37 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home