Mississippi Couple Sues USAA for Katrina Insurance Dispute
A Mississippi couple is suing USAA for refusing to pay out their $1 million homeowners claim. USAA argues the family's home was damaged by water rather than wind, which is not covered in their policy.
The home of Margaret and Magruder Corban was damaged during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Upon filing their insurance claim, they found that USAA was only willing to pay them $40,000 for wind damage and $40,000 in other coverage. The Corban's insist their home was destroyed by wind before the storm surge came through and USAA should, therefore, pay out their entire $1 million claim.
Many insurance companies maintain that their homeowners policies cover wind damage from a hurricane, but not the rising water that often comes with it. They also use overly general language like "anti-concurrent cause" to explain that damage from both wind and water are not covered by the policy.
While a Mississippi District Judge ruled this clause "ambiguous" and unenforceable in an earlier case, a New Orleans court of appeals reversed the ruling. Lawyers for USAA say the court should follow precedent and deny coverage for combined wind and water damage. The Corban's lawyer, on the other hand, says the precedent is not upheld in Mississippi due to the earlier decision and ultimate appeal outside of Mississippi.
Many insurance disputes arise from the extreme damage done to homes during hurricanes. When a home is reduced to a slab, who's to say what caused the damage, wind or water? In the Corban's case, USAA maintains the damage done to the first floor of their property was caused by water. Unfortunately, there may be no way to tell what the actual cause was for the damage.
Sidestepping Insurers
Many insurance companies use ambiguous language, technicalities, or any tactic available to free themselves from the financial responsibility they have to their policy holders. While it seems USAA may have attempted to meet the Corban's half way by paying for damage to the second story of their house, which they agree was caused by wind, the Corban's could very well deserve to be paid out for the entire house.
Aside from figuring out how to decide whether wind or water damaged a home during a hurricane, maybe insurers should be more clear in their policies about what qualifies as wind and water damage. Some insurance dispute attorneys would even argue that insurers not be allowed to specify wind damage as the only hurricane damage covered in a policy. We all know that with hurricane winds comes water, and separating the two often seems like an unfair safety net for insurers.
When the Bablitches approached AllState to claim their policy benefits, they were denied their claims. The lawsuit alleges the company breached the contract in refusing to pay out the claim and is acting in bad faith. The company denies those charges and says it is acting reasonably in the claim.
The 
For a policyholder, it may not be immediately obvious that he is being overcharged by the insurer. When an insurer's desire for profit at any cost causes a situation where a customer is charged and ends up paying more than is lawful, it is necessary he consult with an 
That is only one of the many cases. Across southeast Texas, victims whose homes were damaged when Ike hit were forced to hire insurance attorneys to recover the claims they are rightfully entitled to. The .gif)
Meanwhile, 
At the time of the accident, he was traveling at 100 mph. An earlier jury ruled in the favor of the family, but the verdict was overturned by a judge and an appeals court.
Some of State Farm's arguments against the state’s conditions are almost laughable. For instance, the company does not want its agents to directly sell policies for other insurers because that would dilute its reputation as a “reliable company”. With 1.2 million policy holders in Florida who now have to look for other insurers, State Farms "reliable" reputation is in tatters regardless.