Here's another of those great Rebecca Mowbray stories in the Times-Picayune on Katrina legal developments in Louisiana. This story discusses two different schools of thought among courts in the state when analyzing a common factual scenario -- someone had both a homeowners policy and federally backed flood insurance when Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita damage happened. The majority view is that any payments accepted under the National Flood Insurance Program act as an offset to claims under the homeowners policy; in other words, that there is only so much damage, and the acceptance of the flood payment is an acknowledgment that that dollar amount of loss was not due to wind, and therefore is not owed under the homeowners policy.The minority point of view is that the two are se
Read...Related Headlines
- AIG Unveils New Accident Insurance Policyposted 218 weeks ago on Official QuickQuote Blog
- Insurers returning to the middle market 'killing fields'posted 247 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Appleman's anti-concurrent cause articleposted 245 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Final version of Appleman's anti-concurrent cause/Katrina litigation articleposted 244 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Update on State Farm v. Hood hearing
posted 224 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Anti-concurrent cause language articleposted 248 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Case over in State Farm v. Hood
posted 224 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Single Fathers and Their Children's Health Careposted 249 weeks ago on Official QuickQuote Blog
-
Hood denies there is a settlement in State Farm v. Hood
posted 222 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Scruggs Nation, Day 52
posted 227 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog