wowzers, what lawyer came up with this one?

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,599
126
Insurance loophole claimed in fire deaths
Company says smoke that killed 3 was 'pollution'
By MARY FLOOD
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle
Dec. 17, 2008, 6:33AM


An insurance company with a potential $25 million liability from a 2007 Houston office fire is claiming smoke that killed three people was "pollution" and surviving families shouldn't be compensated for their losses since the deaths were not caused directly by the actual flames.


Great American Insurance Company is arguing in a Houston federal court that the section of the insurance policy that excludes payments for pollution ? like discharges or seepage that require cleanup ? would also exclude payouts for damages, including deaths, caused by smoke, or pollution, that results from a fire.

"This is shocking. It's an extraordinary effort by an insurance company to avoid paying on a contract for insurance," said Randy Sorrels, who represents several family members in wrongful death lawsuits from the fire in a six-story atrium building on the North Loop.

Great American has asked U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal to find that the deaths caused by the smoke, fumes and soot from the March 2007 fire set by a nurse working in the building will not be covered by the policy because there is a specific exclusion for pollution and it mentions smoke, fumes and soot.

'We think it is wrong'
"This took me by surprise," said Don Jackson, the Houston lawyer for building owners Boxer Property Management Corp. He said the insurance company that has the primary $1 million policy on the premises hasn't made this argument and he disagrees with the effort by excess insurance carrier Great American.

"We think it is wrong. It's inappropriate for the insurance company to try to run and hide now," said Jackson.

In October, vocational nurse Misty Ann Weaver was sentenced to 25 years in prison after pleading guilty to three counts of felony murder and one count of first-degree arson for setting the fire to conceal that she had failed to complete paperwork on time.

Great American's legal request, filed in late November and set for hearings in February, notes that there are four pending lawsuits against the property owners for wrongful death and injury, and contends that the insurance company should not have to pay on any of them.

Kevin Sewell, the Dallas lawyer who filed the request, did not return phone calls Tuesday afternoon. Great American spokeswoman Diane Weidner said company policy is to not comment on pending litigation.

Seth Chandler, a University of Houston Law Center professor who teaches insurance law, said while the insurance company's maneuver wasn't out of bounds, it will test the limits of the law.

"This is pushing the boundaries of the absolute pollution exclusion," Chandler said. "We're going to have a battle between the literal language of the policy and the way people speak of pollution."

A question of semantics
He said the issue is an ongoing conversation between the courts and the insurance industry. Chandler said he doesn't know of any other Texas cases on this issue. Nationwide, he said, even carbon monoxide poisoning has been found to be covered by insurance despite a pollution exclusion.

Tom Baker, an insurance law expert who teaches at Penn Law school, said property insurance has a long history of being designed for fire coverage and excluding a fire's smoke is applying the law too broadly.

But, he said, smoke can be tricky and Texas may be a state where the literal meaning could be considered rather than common understanding.

"The purpose of a pollution exclusion is not to not cover people who die from smoke inhalation in a fire," Baker said. "I would hope they (the insurers) lose this."

Text
 

Baked

Lifer
Dec 28, 2004
36,052
17
81
Depends on how much money the lawyers stuff into the judge's pockets.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Sounds like it's time for the claim filers to hit up every single media outlet they possibly can and smear this company into the ground.
 

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
Originally posted by: techs
That's the unregulated, free market for you.

Yea? And? They're going to get tons of bad press about this and will most likely, hopefully, lose the case.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: techs
That's the unregulated, free market for you.

Yea? And? They're going to get tons of bad press about this and will most likely, hopefully, lose the case.

And for every case like this that makes the news, how many people are screwed by insurance companies that don't make the news?
 

Kelvrick

Lifer
Feb 14, 2001
18,422
5
81
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: Kelvrick
Originally posted by: techs
That's the unregulated, free market for you.

Yea? And? They're going to get tons of bad press about this and will most likely, hopefully, lose the case.

And for every case like this that makes the news, how many people are screwed by insurance companies that don't make the news?

I will concede the point on the fact that I also think insurance companies are blood sucking scammers.

But, I still don't agree with how you used the word regulation. If only this were a perfect world and it wouldn't bankrupt a person to take an insurance company to court.
 

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
There is a whole lot more going on here than is disclosed.

I hate how the media puts angles on things and does not disclose the whole truth.

Insurance companies would not be seen as the bad guys if lawyers didn't try to exploit every loophole that they can find and make the policies pay for things they shouldn't. Unless you have read the actual policy jacket in full for this case then it is impossible to pass judgment from the facts given above.

Edit: People who don't understand how insurance work often think they are scammers. They have every right to. If you don't understand something it can seem unfair.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
There is a whole lot more going on here than is disclosed.

I hate how the media puts angles on things and does not disclose the whole truth.

Insurance companies would not be seen as the bad guys if lawyers didn't try to exploit every loophole that they can find and make the policies pay for things they shouldn't. Unless you have read the actual policy jacket in full for this case then it is impossible to pass judgment from the facts given above.

Edit: People who don't understand how insurance work often think they are scammers. They have every right to. If you don't understand something it can seem unfair.

What else is there to disclose?

If somebody is in a building that is on fire should it make any freaking difference if they died from smoke inhalation or the flames or a header beam from the ceiling that fell on them?

The Insurance company is trying to pull at any vague interpretation that they can to get out of paying. Which is their right. But it's also our right to call them out on it.
 

compman25

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2006
3,767
2
81
The building owner is who people should be pissed at. He bought the insurance with that clause. If it wasn't in his policy the insurance company wouldn't be using it to try and deny the claims. They are defending themselves based on the insurance the owner had.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,301
1,813
126
Somebody needs to burn down the "Great American Insurance Company" Headquarters with their legal team in the building. Then, the arsonist should argue in court that it was not murder since "smoke is pollution" and not "fire."
 

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,779
882
126
So do deadly farts fall under pollution or weapons of mass destruction area?
 

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
There is a whole lot more going on here than is disclosed.

I hate how the media puts angles on things and does not disclose the whole truth.

Insurance companies would not be seen as the bad guys if lawyers didn't try to exploit every loophole that they can find and make the policies pay for things they shouldn't. Unless you have read the actual policy jacket in full for this case then it is impossible to pass judgment from the facts given above.

Edit: People who don't understand how insurance work often think they are scammers. They have every right to. If you don't understand something it can seem unfair.

What else is there to disclose?

If somebody is in a building that is on fire should it make any freaking difference if they died from smoke inhalation or the flames or a header beam from the ceiling that fell on them?

The Insurance company is trying to pull at any vague interpretation that they can to get out of paying. Which is their right. But it's also our right to call them out on it.

What else is there to disclose?!

Insurance policy jackets are usually 30- 40 pages of fine print. All we have here is a few sentences from it. Just because the lawyers or family feel they it should pay for it does not mean it should. If it specifically excludes this type of loss then why should it pay for something it clearly does not cover?

Would you expect your auto insurance to cover a plane crashing into you house?

It?s like arguing that it should because your car was parked in your house. When the plane hit the house, even though car is covered why shouldn?t your auto policy cover your house too?

Like I said, THERE IS TOO MUCH MISSING TO MAKE A CORRECT JUDGMENT FROM THIS ARTICLE.

The insurance company could be liable it could not be I don?t know too much is missing. I would have to read through the policy jacket. I see often lots of times where people think a policy should pay for something it does not. When people loose things they get nasty and look for coverage wherever they can try to get it. They get ugly. Even when their agent told them of the risks they will claim ignorance. This could very well end up being the companies (the location that had the fire) fault for not getting they type of policy they should have for the risk exposure they did have.

Too much information is missing.

See my point?

That being said anytime there is loss of life it?s sad.
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
There is a whole lot more going on here than is disclosed.

I hate how the media puts angles on things and does not disclose the whole truth.

Insurance companies would not be seen as the bad guys if lawyers didn't try to exploit every loophole that they can find and make the policies pay for things they shouldn't. Unless you have read the actual policy jacket in full for this case then it is impossible to pass judgment from the facts given above.

Edit: People who don't understand how insurance work often think they are scammers. They have every right to. If you don't understand something it can seem unfair.

What else is there to disclose?

If somebody is in a building that is on fire should it make any freaking difference if they died from smoke inhalation or the flames or a header beam from the ceiling that fell on them?

The Insurance company is trying to pull at any vague interpretation that they can to get out of paying. Which is their right. But it's also our right to call them out on it.

What else is there to disclose?!

Insurance policy jackets are usually 30- 40 pages of fine print. All we have here is a few sentences from it. Just because the lawyers or family feel they it should pay for it does not mean it should. If it specifically excludes this type of loss then why should it pay for something it clearly does not cover?

Would you expect your auto insurance to cover a plane crashing into you house?

It?s like arguing that it should because your car was parked in your house. When the plane hit the house, even though car is covered why shouldn?t your auto policy cover your house too?

Like I said, THERE IS TOO MUCH MISSING TO MAKE A CORRECT JUDGMENT FROM THIS ARTICLE.

The insurance company could be liable it could not be I don?t know too much is missing. I would have to read through the policy jacket. I see often lots of times where people think a policy should pay for something it does not. When people loose things they get nasty and look for coverage wherever they can try to get it. They get ugly. Even when their agent told them of the risks they will claim ignorance. This could very well end up being the companies (the location that had the fire) fault for not getting they type of policy they should have for the risk exposure they did have.

Too much information is missing.

See my point?

That being said anytime there is loss of life it?s sad.

Max Weinstein: Play with this. Sir, I have reviewed this contract, and it offers no coverage at all. It just says "volcano insurance" over and over again and down here in small print it says: "He's signing it. He's signing it. I can't believe it."
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,599
126
Max Weinstein: Play with this. Sir, I have reviewed this contract, and it offers no coverage at all. It just says "volcano insurance" over and over again and down here in small print it says: "He's signing it. He's signing it. I can't believe it."

lol
 

MrWizzard

Platinum Member
Mar 24, 2002
2,493
0
71
Originally posted by: Ns1
Max Weinstein: Play with this. Sir, I have reviewed this contract, and it offers no coverage at all. It just says "volcano insurance" over and over again and down here in small print it says: "He's signing it. He's signing it. I can't believe it."

lol

Lol, if it came to that the company would be in trouble. Good point though.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
Somebody needs to burn down the "Great American Insurance Company" Headquarters with their legal team in the building. Then, the arsonist should argue in court that it was not murder since "smoke is pollution" and not "fire."

user name, lulz.