Slabbed Gets It and So Do I: What About All the Other More Brilliant People Regarding Concepts of Concurrent Causation?
The editors of Slabbed deserve some type of honor. What do they get for all the education about events of the day they provide? My hat is off to them. All of us are the better for it.
"Perhaps Lynda can explain why this is the policyholder’s fault?" is a Slabbed post where the absurdity of an insurer's argument is brought to light. Rarely do I find my attorney colleagues calling each other out for such stupid arguments. I do not often say "stupid" but some insurer arguments have been accepted as "arguable" when most courts should have chastised counsel so that these embarrassing arguments are never made. My hat is off to a non-commercial social blog, Slabbed, for pointing this out.
On this topic of concurrent causation, I made the following posts which others studying this topic should consider:
- Concurrent Causation Analysis Applied by FC&S---Learning From an Insurance Industry Source;
- Corban Mississippi Supreme Court Case Decided, Part 2;
- Corban Part Three: A Win for Policyholders and a Decision Following Rossmiller's Causation Analysis of the Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause;
- Personal observations of the Tuepker vs. State Farm oral argument
Good thing we get it Chip because some folks never will. From my inbox:
Chip I am reminded of your post wondering why insurers hated their customers so. I still don't know the answer but it remains a great question.
sop
Sop/Chip: Sounds like the person who wrote/sent you that e-mail, Doug, is rather narrowminded himself/herself.
Additionally, there are FALSE (and one has to smile while reading it though) statements in it, for instance this one:
"....By forcing insurers to pay damages they never
intended their policies to cover, and which they
KNEW those policies were never intended to cover,
these people are STEALING FROM YOU!..."
The only times I've ever seen an ins. co. being "forced" to pay benefits rightfully due the insured may be through a Final Judgment, Appraisal Award, Mediation Conference settlement, etc. - but "forced" is a rather strong word for an insurer being made (and/or "told" and/or "ordered") to do (i.e., pay) what they should have paid in the first place (had they been acting with due diligence and fairness toward their insured instead of making a profit) w/o the insured having to resort to the "powers that be" to have their ins. co. "FORCED" and/or "ORDERED" to pay benefits rightfully owed in the first place.
SHIRLEY HEFLIN
Chip, I posted this comment on SLABBED and cut & pasted it to put on your site:
wow, this is a “doozy” – gotta jump in this one even though I have homework that must be done tonight in Psy. 400 (“Interviewing Techniques”).
Excerpt from one of Lynda’s comments above (and I picked this one cuz it interests me and I don’t have the time – or the knowledge – to address EVERYTHING herein – but you guys are doing a GREAT JOB replying anyway):
“You can (and should) know how one company’s contract
compares to another before you buy. (For example, a new car
warranty. One has a 50,000 mile/36 month warranty. Another
has a 100,000 mile/5 year warranty. You DO take this
information into consideration when you buy, don’t you? If
NOT, should you be entitled to the 100/000 mile warranty just
because you didn’t know you had an option to buy a different
car with such a warranty? )
First, I.M.H.O., comparing car warranties (guaranteeing repairs to cars) to insurance policies (allegedly guaranteeing repairs and/or replacement to someone’s home, business, etc.) is like comparing powdered milk with whole milk = THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!
Second, your average citizen does not buy a policy with – let’s say – STATE FARM – inherent with (and privy to) the knowledge of their recent claims practices during Katrina (i.e., declaring everything was a flood loss so that the U.S. Govt. paid the claim and then REIMBURSED STATE FARM) and then STATE FARM still DENIED THE AVERAGE CITIZEN’S CLAIM (which State Farm just profited from!!). NO, YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT – AND, AGAIN, IS NOT PRIVY TO – THAT INFORMATION – THEY SHOULD BE, BUT THEY ARE NOT. There should be signs in offices that sell State Farm policies explaining this (and other) “claims practices” and then your “average citizen” can make an intelligent and informed decision b4 purchasing a policy.
Further:
“….For example, a new car warranty. One has a 50,000
mile/36 month warranty. Another has a 100,000 mile/5 year
warranty. You DO take this information into consideration
when you buy, don’t you?”
Sure, I take this into consideration just like I take the GEICO “gecko’s” promise on tv to pay claims and provide excellent service; and State Farm’s promise to treat its insured’s like a “good neighbor.” Please just because S/Farm sells a $100k contents limit in its Homeowner’s policy DOES NOT MEAN THEY’RE GOING TO PAY THEIR INSURED $100K IN CONTENTS – EVEN WHEN THE INSURED EXHAUSTIVELY PROVES THEY DESERVE IT!!!
So most people smart enough to buy insurance to cover the things important to them and their lives are just that – SMART – they’re also NAIVE and ASTONISHED when their INSURANCE COMPANY DOES NOT DO WHAT IT PROMISED (AND CONTRACTED) TO DO WHEN THEY PAID FOR THEIR POLICY/CONTRACT!!!
SHIRLEY HEFLIN