Is The Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Ethical?

Litigation and policy debates among state and federal lawmakers have exploded over the controversial anti-concurrent-causation clauses in homeowners policies–which deny coverage for most, if not all windstorm losses when excluded flood-related damage is also involved. Consumer advocates call the clause confusing at best, and at worst a trap door to deny insureds their legitimate coverage. Click on to see some of the ethical questions we raise for readers, and feel free to respond–either directly to this blog, or to our ethics columnist.

Among the ethical queries we make of readers for our next “Question of Ethics” column:

Is the ACC clause ethical on its face?

Has it been ethically-implemented by the industry in the wake of Hurricane Katrina?

Is there anything that can be done to more fairly exclude flood damages without leaving policyholders high and dry after a windstorm catastrophe?

Feel free to respond to any or all of these questions right here on my blog. If you do, you may remain anonymous, but please, at least tell us what your position is in the industry for context–are you an agent, adjuster, underwriter, risk manager, or some other position?

If you prefer, you may forward your responses directly to our ethics columnist, Peter R. Kensicki, at ethics@eku.edu, or snail-mail them to his attention at Eastern Kentucky University, 030 College of Business and Technology Center, Richmond, Ky. 40475-3101. All comments are due by Oct. 31.

In NU magazine's recap of the responses, the names of all respondents will be kept confidential–only their connection to the industry will be identified, by the type of work they do.

Mr. Kensicki's column summarizing readers anonymous views will appear in the Jan. 7, 2008, edition, and in my blog later that week. But again, please don't hesitate to weigh in here and now. All comments will be forwarded to Mr. Kensicki.

Let the debate begin!