BROADCASTS.com

b'

Katrina Cases 

https://zalma.com/blog

The United States District Court for the Southern District of  Mississippi, Southern Division, entered an important decision with  regard to water damage and insurance policy coverages raised after  Hurricane Katrina.  

In Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir.  08/30/2007), the first of the Katrina cases to go to trial, the court  found that the Leonards\\u2019 residence was not covered by any policy of  flood insurance at the time of the storm. Flood insurance is available  to anyone, regardless of which flood zone their residence is situated  in, yet the plaintiffs did not purchase it; they purchased only a common  homeowner\\u2019s policy from Nationwide.  The evidence presented at trial conclusively established the following  points:  That on August 29, 2005, the entire area surrounding Pascagoula,  Mississippi, including the Leonard residence and its surrounding  neighborhood, was subjected to violent winds in excess of 100 miles per  hour. These winds increased gradually in the early morning hours and  reached a peak of intensity between 9:00 a.m. and noon. Water from the Mississippi Sound was driven ashore by the storm, and the  water level in the Leonard neighborhood rose to a peak level between  11:00 a.m. and noon. At its highest point, this water inundated the  Leonard residence to a depth of approximately five feet. The Leonard residence is approximately 12 feet above sea level. 

This  property is 515 feet from the beachfront to the south. The inundation of the ground floor of the Leonards\\u2019 residence caused  extensive damage to their floors, carpets, walls, and personal property.  The second floor of the Leonards\\u2019 property was not damaged. The  physical damage to the roof of the Leonards\\u2019 property consisted of a  small number of broken shingles, and the watertight integrity of the  roof was not breached during the storm. The attached garage on the  Leonards\\u2019 property was also extensively damaged during the storm. The only wind damage on the ground floor of the Leonards\\u2019 residence was a  hole in one window that witnesses described as \\u201cgolf-ball sized.\\u201d The  exterior of the Leonards\\u2019 home and the attached garage were soiled by a  combination of wind-driven materials and water-borne materials.  Based on the findings of fact established by evidence at trial, the  court concluded:  

The provisions of the Nationwide policy that exclude coverage for  damages caused by water are valid and enforceable terms of the insurance  contract. Similar policy terms have been enforced with respect to  damage caused by high water associated with hurricanes in many reported  decisions.

ZALMA OPINION  Whether a claims is for water damage, wind damage, or resulting mold  infestations as a result of water infestation it is important that the  insurer conduct a thorough investigation into the causes, determine  which are due to a covered peril and those which are clearly and  unambiguously excluded by the policy. The video discusses the types of  decisions that are rendered by the courts after a catastrophe like a  hurricane.