Insurers Racking Up the Wins in Katrina-Homeowner Litigation

This is a discussion on Insurers Racking Up the Wins in Katrina-Homeowner Litigation within the Insurance Issues forum, part of the ACCIDENTS, PERSONAL INJURY, INSURANCE category; It’s been a very good couple of days for property insurers who’ve been litigating over Hurricane Katrina coverage. Today, the ...

Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply

 

Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 8th, 2008, 09:30 PM   #1
News
 
WSJ_law_blog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,438

Default Insurers Racking Up the Wins in Katrina-Homeowner Litigation

It’s been a very good couple of days for property insurers who’ve been litigating over Hurricane Katrina coverage.



Today, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that Lafayette Insurance is not obligated to pay for water damage from the failure of New Orleans area levees. The ruling reportedly could affect thousands of homeowners. Here’s the story, from the AP and a copy of the opinion.

In November, a Louisiana appellate court concluded Lafayette’s homeowner policy failed to exclude all forms of flooding because its language was ambiguous. But, good news for Lafayette, the Louisiana Supreme Court disagreed.

A jury and state judge had awarded the plaintiff property owner a total of $870,652, but the Supreme Court reduced that to $247,001 for wind damage, lost rent, penalties and other costs.



Meanwhile, yesterday, the Fifth Circuit reversed a $1 million punitive damages verdict against State Farm and sent the case back to federal court for a jury to determine how much the company owes policyholders. Here’s a copy of the opinion, courtesy of the Insurance Coverage Blog. Here’s a story from the Biloxi Sun-Herald’s Anita Lee, whose work we got to know well during L’Affaire Scruggs.

The backstory on the Broussard case, as it’s known: policyholders Norman and Genevieve Broussard lost their Biloxi home during Hurricane Katrina. After State Farm denied coverage, the couple sued. At trial, district judge L.T. Senter ruled that the case should not go to a jury, saying that State Farm had entered insufficient evidence that the policy excluded water damage. He granted a judgment for the plaintiffs. A jury later granted the Broussards $2.5 million in punitive damages, an amount Senter reduced to $1 million.

Yesterday’s ruling reverses all that. The appeals court called Senter’s decision “clear error,” saying State Farm did offer the jury “sufficient evidence” to consider. Further, the Fifth Circuit held that State Farm was not malicious or grossly negligent in adjusting the Broussards’ claim, and wiped away the punitives award. The case will head back to the jury on what type of damage the house sustained.

Arguing the case for State Farm: Clarke Holland.

Last edited by top_admin; Sep 2nd, 2008 at 11:40 PM.
WSJ_law_blog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmark & Share



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

| More

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Format Your Messages
Add Forum to Google Toolbar
Forum Jump

Similar Threads

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
accident and two insurers Unregistered Insurance Issues 2 Oct 1st, 2009 05:12 AM
China presses insurers to buy shares FT_news China News 0 Oct 29th, 2008 04:30 AM
Are Insurers actions criminal extortion edgos Miscellaneous Topics 1 Feb 11th, 2008 08:10 PM
Hurricane Katrina Unregistered Construction & Renovation 1 Sep 4th, 2007 10:32 PM
homeowner Unregistered Miscellaneous Topics 1 Sep 4th, 2007 10:23 PM


Powered by U.S. Legal Forms


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:12 PM.