Many of my retail corporate clients and their general counsel have told me that if they advertised and then performed in the manner of their insurer, the federal and state trade commissions would be holding “bait and switch” hearings. But, this is exactly the type of treatment insurance executives are calling for when they support the propaganda against their own customers through spokespersons such as Hartwig.
I am not the only one to have noticed this…The editors of Slabbed were pretty blunt about what they think about Hartwig.
Chip linked two recent SLABBED posts – Bam Bam’s The Push Back on Corban – “You’re gonna pay for this” and Sop’s Da Corban spin continues: AIA prefers denial while the National Underwriter carries III press release calling it news – and added his thoughts as he raised the question Why Is the Property Insurance Industry Against Its Own Customers?
The response by Robert Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute to the landmark Corban decision typifies how executives at many insurance companies feel about their customers. If not, Hartwick would be out of a job. Here is his quote taken from Anita Lee’s article: Continue reading “Chip Merlin asks Why is the property insurance industry against its own customers?”
Attention now turns to several dispositive motions filed by Plaintiff concerning  the issue of the anti-concurrent cause clause in the subject insurance policy;  the issue of windstorm;  the dwelling extension coverage; and  “accidental direct physical loss” suffered by Plaintiff.
At the time these motions were filed, some of the issues were the subjects of an appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, Corban v. United Services Automobile Assoc…; the Supreme Court issued an opinion on October 8, 2009, and rejected the principal conclusions reached by the United States Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in Tuepker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co…and Leonard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co… However, that does not mean that Plaintiff is entitled to the requested relief.
In addressing Bossier’s dispositive motions, one of the three Orders he issued in Bossier v State Farm last Friday, Judge Senter enters the conversation on the impact Corban will have on the remaining policyholder claims in litigation.
While the Mississippi Supreme Court did not agree with the Fifth Circuit’s interpretation of the anti-concurrent cause clause found in homeowner insurance policies, especially with respect to the “in any sequence” portion of the provision, the decision did not change the essence of this Court’s approach regarding the meaning and–for practical purposes–inapplicability of the anti-concurrent language.
The Mississippi Supreme Court expressly adopted this Court’s analysis in Dickinson v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co…Now that the Mississippi Supreme Court has issued its decision, this Court sees no reason to delay trial, for the intention to follow Dickinson and the interpretation of the anti-concurrent cause language has been consistently clear and has merely been affirmed by Corban.
The Mississippi Supreme Court did not go as far as Continue reading “Judge Senter applies Corban, issues trio of Orders in Bossier v State Farm”