In last week's edition, National Underwriter ethics columnist Peter R. Kensicki reported on reader feedback to his latest challenge: What are the ethical issues raised by lawsuits over claims for wind-versus-water damage following Hurricane Katrina? I have my own thoughts on the subject, briefly outlined in this entry, but please check out the column for yourself by clicking here and then weigh in with your take on the situation.
Personally, I think while it's pretty clear that insurance does not cover flood-related damages, it's not quite so clear that such exclusions applied to all the damage being attributed to storm-surge in Mississippi. And I certainly wouldn't want to be in an Ole Miss courthouse trying to convince a jury of locals what I meant to exclude in the policy.
Read the column and feel free to post your observations and opinions. Are insurers in the clear here? Are they simply being taken advantage of by a politically-minded state attorney general? Or do they bear any of the responsibility for the confusion–and litigation–that's ensued? I look forward to hearing from you.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.