Admittedly, I can’t hold my own with the comments here and here on SLABBED this morning; but, I’ve read about plaintiffs that were hindered from performing the act and just plain f%*&@#.
I’ll also admit that I lifted the title from a line in Merlin’s new post and that Fowler v State Farm provided my introduction to the hindered act:
In the simplest terms, State Farm cannot refuse to pay the funds due and owing under the policy, then insist that Plaintiffs rebuild before they are entitled to sue for recovery of the replacement costs.
Most gulf coast residents simply do not have the financial resources to rebuild an entire home to completion without the benefit of the insurance benefits due from their homeowner’s insurer. State Farm could greatly reduce its exposure following hurricanes by simply denying coverage, then insisting that the maximum recovery is the actual caSh value Wlder the policy – normally significantly less than replacement costs – simply because the homeowner hasn’t completed rebuilding the home, which they simply can’t afford to do without the insurance proceeds State Farm withholds.
Homeowners are not required to do such a vain and useless thing; they aren’t Continue reading “We will not now allow defendant to raise as a defense plaintiff’s failure to perform an act which defendant itself greatly hindered plaintiff from performing”