Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog : Florida Insurance Lawyer & Attorney : Merlin Law Group Law Firm : Tampa, Houston, Coral Gables, Gulfport

In Industry, Taylor React To 'Compromise' Senate Wind vs. Water Bill, Taylor's position was noted:

Brian Martin, policy director for Rep. Taylor, contradicted reports that Rep. Taylor believes the Wicker bill is a good compromise between his bill and the five-year NFIP extension recently passed by the House that does not add windstorm coverage to the program.

“Wicker’s bill is not a substitute for Rep. Taylor’s legislation, H.R. 1264, the Multiple Peril Insurance Act,” Mr. Martin said. He said the Wicker bill is just an administrative procedure for resolving "wind vs. water" conflicts between the NFIP and insurance companies.

He noted that Rep. Taylor’s amendment to the five-year extension bill is “slightly similar” to the Wicker bill in that when there is a "wind vs. water" dispute, the homeowner would be paid and then the wind and flood policies would figure out how to allocate the loss.

Mr. Martin said that in Rep. Taylor’s amendment, The NFIP pays the homeowner and gets reimbursed later by the insurer for the wind share.
He explained, “I thought we would have some state and NAIC issues if we tried to make the private insurer pay the homeowner, so that is why we propose in our amendment that the NFIP pay the homeowner and then make the insurer reimburse NFIP after the allocation was decided.”

Currently, Mr. Martin and Rep. Taylor are continuing to seek floor action on the bill to add windstorm coverage to the NFIP.

Brian Martin is a very hardworking staffer working for Taylor's constituency in Mississippi. These flood insurance issues are political, social and financial. I first met Martin when we took a Rimkus engineer to meet Gene Taylor in Washington. The engineer’s original written opinion indicating that wind caused the damage had been changed without his approval to reflect that flood caused the damage. Martin and Taylor were obviously interested in meeting this engineer.

I applaud and wish good luck to Taylor and Martin in their efforts. They have a long, long way to go trying to prevent the heartbreak caused by the insurance industry selling a defective product. And that reminds of a song as our weekend is upon us:
 

While researching concepts of "windstorm" coverage, I recently came across an older Texas case and fact pattern that made me smile-almost laugh. I am certain the attorney first hearing it must have felt the same way. I assume the insurance adjuster was not so amused by the facts.

Howsley, an avid outdoorsman, lost his personal property consisting of camping and fishing equipment, clothes and camera equipment when two rubber boats or rafts overturned while floating down the Rio Grande River in New Mexico. The only evidence concerning the accident is found in Howsley's deposition. Howsley and a friend were in the two rubber boats which were attached to each other as they floated down the river at the place he referred to as the "Rio Grande Gorge". They experienced difficulty in rowing the boats because of a current which was "split by a large rock". The currents apparently caused the two boats to float "sideways". The boats washed up against the large rock "one of them went on this side and the other on this side". The men were rowing against the wind which Howsley described as "a terrifically strong wind". He testified that when the boats came to rest on the rock the wind "flipped it over like flipping a match or something". His testimony was to the effect that the force of the impact of the boat upon the rock did not overturn the boat but that it was caused by the wind. The equipment was lost in the river when the boat capsized.

Employers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Howsley, 432 S.W.2d 578, 579 (Tex. Civ. App. Amarillo 1968) (emphasis added).

Howsley's insurance policy covered his personal property for "windstorm" loss. Howsley's insurance company took a position that I am going to hear hundreds of times from TWIA and other Texas insurers in the near future, just as in Hurricane Katrina litigation:

One of the exclusions of the policy provides: "This insurance does not cover a loss caused by or resulting from:

(1) flood, surface, water, waves, title water or title wave, overflow of streams or other bodies of water, or spray from any of the foregoing, all whether driven by wind or not."

Howsley, 432 S.W.2d at 579.

Howsley won. The Court upheld the trial court's finding that the lost was not excluded and that a "windstorm" caused the loss:

One of the perils insured against was "windstorm", which has been defined as "something more than an ordinary gust of wind, no matter how prolonged, and though the whirling features which usually accompany tornadoes and cyclones need not be present, it must assume the aspect of a storm." Fireman's Ins. Co. v. Weatherman, Tex.Civ.App., 193 S.W. 2d 247 (ref'd n.r.e.). The case cites other authorities approving similar or identical definitions. Howsley described the wind as "terrifically strong" and said the wind was "blowing up the canyon". We think the record is sufficient to bring the loss within this insured peril of the policy, and that the "terrifically strong wind" was the dominant and efficient cause of appellee's loss. The evidence does show the split or divided currents were instrumental in forcing the raft upon the rock. Although this condition did contribute to the circumstances leading to the loss it was not the efficient cause. It has been held that if a windstorm is the dominant or efficient cause of loss the insured may recover notwithstanding that another cause or causes contributed to the damage.

Howsley, 432 S.W.2d at 580.

Texas Slabbers and others should get the same result so long as they do not give up the fight. Maybe there is some good that arises out of a situation which may seem terrible at first. That is an idea which should be contemplated since many of us have just celebrated Passover and Easter.

I vividly recall getting an agreement from State Farm (which made the infamous wind/water protocol) that a hurricane was a windstorm and that the State Farm claims manual listed "hurricane" as a windstorm. During the Katrina trial in Broussard v State Farm, Judge Senter noted that under the policy, Hurricane Katrina was a windstorm that damaged the real and personal property of the policyholders. In that case, State Farm admitted Hurricane Katrina was a windstorm. All adjusters are taught that hurricanes are windstorms.

So, when Texas Windstorm Insurance Association policyholders think that they have hurricane coverage that covers the waters in a hurricane, and they find the small print of their policy attempts to exclude storm surge and flood related damage, there should be empathy for them. I find it troubling that some might actually display distain for those policyholders confused by TWIA’s policies. It certainly was not the policyholders’ fault or choice to have Hurricane Ike devastate their homes.

The writers from Slabbed hit the mark in their post, Slabbed Welcomes Texas Windstorm Association and Ike victims to "the scheme.” The Slabbers in Texas are just like the Slabbed in Mississippi. For me, the legal causation facts and issues are like deja vu all over again.

The primary coverage difference is that most Slabbers are covered by TWIA while most Slabbed in Mississippi had private all risk carriers. Of course, both the all risk policies litigated in Mississippi also had a named peril of "windstorm" for personal property and "collapse" coverage which is the same as the "windstorm" peril covered for real and personal property in the TWIA policy.

Still, I am going to prove that my clients suffered windstorm damage. Even if the flood and storm surge exclusions will be found as valid in Texas, TWIA is going to have to prove those exclusions. In the Slabbers cases there is nothing left and TWIA will have the same problem all the insurers had in Mississippi proving the fact of the its exclusions. Still, it is going to be a legal fight.

So, for those anticipating and predicting how the litigation may be fought and argued in Texas, I suggest some of the Katrina cases and analysis may provide some guidance. If you read them all, they will most likely provide you some sleep as well.

For non-slabbed structures, which are those that were not completely blown or washed away, the causation and proof of the amount of damage becomes paramount. Some of the recent discussions on Slabbed concerning the Mississippi Rigsby case (which came about from the McIntosh case) demonstrate the numerous factual disagreements.

For those inflicted with insomnia and interested in Slabbers, I suggest that you read the following:

1. Broussard Oral Argument: Warming The Bench Is No Easy Task. (This is very interesting and will not cure insomnia. I wrote it).

2. Two posts by insurance defense lawyer, David Rossmiller: Kodrin Katrina case: Fifth Circuit vacates punitive damage award against State Farm, upholds verdict of wind damage and Abracadabra:anti-concurrent cause and the search for "illusory" insurance coverage. (You may at least be yawning after reading these. I hope Rossmiller does not take a Scruggs-like jab at me for warning you).

3. Northrop Grumman v Factory Mutual 538 F 3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008). (Sleep time. But, this case and its briefing says a lot about the litigation that I expect will come in Texas.)

There are a couple of fun Texas cases regarding windstorm and some other legal issues I will address in Sunday's post.