Honesty is the best policy – and, a hurricane policy written to exclude damage from a hurricane is honestly not the best policy.
Consequently, Counsel for O’Bannon filed a Motion to Stay O’Bannon v Nationwide pending the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision in Corban v USAA claiming, Nationwide further showed its “true intention” of unfair and unconscionable application of the ACC to exclude coverage to its insured during questioning from Chief Justice William L. Waller, Jr.:
JUSTICE WALLER: Do you agree – Nationwide was a party to the Dickinson case. Do you agree with Judge Senter’s ruling in that?
MR. LANDAU: No, Your Honor. We respectfully do not. We think its inconsistent with Leonard case and the Bilby case and the Tuepker case from the Fifth Circuit.
JUSTICE WALLER: Would your company have paid the same losses that USAA has voluntarily paid in the Corban case?
MR. LANDAU: Our company [Nationwide] has –
JUSTICE WALLER: On wind damage? On wind damage?
MR. LANDAU: Your Honor, our company would not feel compelled by the clause by the plain language to pay.
JUSTICE WALLER: So you wouldn’t?
MR. LANDAU: Our position is that we are not required to pay those losses. Sometime, where we believe that you can really show that these pure wind losses covered, then we’ll pay wind losses.
But we certainly don’t believe that the Plaintiffs can be free to go out and get whatever expert they want and get to a jury on these kind of issues, where we carry our burden of showing that, regardless of the sequencing, the water was sufficient to cause the loss. Because we believe that that’s why these clauses — that’s the whole point of the clause.
And, that’s the “whole point” of O’Bannon’s motion: Continue reading “O’Bannon cites Corban transcript in Motion to Stay case against Nationwide”