7 thoughts on “We previously linked Corban the Movie on Slabbed, now we have the “Corban Book””

  1. JUSTICE RANDOLPH: If wind blows in my house and throws a couch up against the wall and breaks it in half, have I suffered a loss?

    MR. LANDAU: Your Honor, you cannot

  2. [ Scratches head ] Heck I thought it was the wind pushing and moving everything. In fact, had there been no wind ? then what. If it isn’t believed it was wind then please someone explain the thought of the impossibility of things moving without force.

  3. Laughing hysterically….

    State Farm, Allstate, etc…. must be very pissed off right now. Nationwide and its legal team did an absolutely horrible job of arguing the ACC. Instead of arguing some semblance of a rational interpretation that would have allowed the ACC to withstand judicial scrutiny and have some application, these clowns may very well have sunk the whole ACC boat in Mississippi.

    As the saying goes… the bad (Allstate and State Farm) suffer for the worse, Nationwide.

  4. Landau was the attorney who persuaded the 5th Circuit to overturn Senter in the Leonard case, finding that ACC is not ambiguous and is enforceable. The 5th ruled on ACC without questioning the practical application the way the MSSC did.

    State Farm and Allstate filed briefs with the MS Supreme Court and neither made a compelling argument for ACC.

    Copeland for USAA argued for a narrower interpretation in person than in his motions and briefs. On paper, he wants ACC to exclude any damage that flooding “contributed to.” In person, he pretended that the “contributed to” standard would only exclude damage that would not have happened “but for” flooding. There were billions of dollars of losses that would be excluded by “contributed to” but not excluded by “but for.”

  5. Thanks, Brian, could you explain a little more about the distinction in “contributed to” and “but for” – particularly difference in impact on policyholder damage claims?

  6. It’s all about the Burden of Proof.
    If insurers merely have to prove that flooding contributed to the loss, they will be able to invoke the exclusion broadly and force policyholders to sue.
    On the other hand, if insurers have to prove that the loss would not have happened “but for” flooding, they have a much narrower exclusion.
    “Contributed to” lets the insurer base the dispute on how much damage flooding might have caused.
    “But for” focuses the dispute focus on how much damage the winds could have caused.
    “Contributed to” is a guarantee of endless litigation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *