Insurance Claims and Bad Faith Law Blog

PREDICTION FOR INDEPENDENCE DAY: Hurricane Center to Lose Independence....

                                        And Will be Relocated.    

     The 2007 Hurricane predictions by researchers at North Carolina State University arrived earlier this year, following on the heels of a demonstrated track record:  They simply were accurate in predicting Hurricanes in earlier years.  Those earlier years include Hurricane Katrina, for example.  The magazine Nature published a study, "Torrid Hurricane Season in Store," two months ago.  This information is accessible to all.  See for example "Hurricanes, Predictions, and Potential for Catastrophes" posted on May 23, 2007, and "Less on Hurricanes:  'Just Say No'" posted on May 24, 2007, on Insurance Claims And Issues Web Log.      

     The people presently populating the federal government, however, and particularly NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration located in Washington, D.C., were plain wrong in their past predictions of Hurricanes.  Following the retirement of Dr. Max Mayfield as Director of the National Hurricane Center located in Florida, they are not paying attention it seems.  According to published reports, they now ignore the National Hurricane Center located in Florida.  In response to their poor record, they currently rely on Hurricane predictions from Inland.  They rely on predictions provided by Colorado State University, apparently a reliable source for them.

      Earlier this year, these same people also potentially put population centers at risk by shifting funds away from a satellite used to track severe storms.  The satellite reportedly has since failed.   In a related development, these same people, again, decreased the budget available for "Hurricane Hunter" aircraft flights to assess Hurricanes and other potentially catastrophic storms in 2007.   These  and other developments are also publicly available information.  See for example the two posts mentioned above, on May 23 and on May 24, 2007 in Insurance Claims And Issues Web Log.   

     The response of the federal government is, predictably (no pun intended), to attack the persons who have pointed out that instead of spending money on satellites and aircraft assessment flights, NOAA's budget shifts $4,000,000.00 to publicity, alone, for a celebration of its 200th anniversary in 2007.

     So now, also predictably (and again, no pun intended), these persons who brought us no preparation for Hurricane Katrina are prepared, in contrast, to deflect criticism away from their own inactions and actions, to the personalities and supposed shortcomings of other people instead.  They may be succeeding in the short run.

     The controversy including reports of personnel issues is thoughtfully and it seems, fairly explored by Martin Melzer in, "Storm Intensifies as Forecasters Want Director Removed," MiamiHerald.com (Posted on Tuesday, July 3, 2007).

                                           Please Read The Disclaimer.

Katrina CatClaims Revisited: State Farm Settles, Is Sued Again.

    It appears that State Farm may have been sued again for Bad Faith as a result of Hurricane Katrina Catastrophe Claims -- indirectly, this time.

    There was once a settlement agreement, among many policyholders and State Farm, in Mississippi.  The proposed settlement agreement was subject to Federal Court approval.  The Federal Judge was confronted with more questions than answers when he was presented with the proposed settlement for his approval.  The Federal Judge refused to approve it, at least until the many questions were answered.

     State Farm then reportedly reached a settlement agreement of many of the same claims with the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner's Office.  This lengthy previous history was summarized in "Update to the Update:  New Settlement in Mississippi," posted on March 20, 2007 on "Insurance Claims And Issues".   

    It is now reported that the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Attorney General, filed a new Complaint on Monday, June 11, 2007 in Mississippi State Court.  The new Complaint contains allegations, it is reported, that State Farm breached the (first) settlement agreement and thus breached a contract.  The new Complaint contains demands for compensatory and punitive damages.  More will be posted as the Complaint becomes available.  As of the night of June 11, 2007, there was a momentary silence on the subject on the web sites of both the Mississippi Attorney General and the Mississippi Insurance Commissioner.

     Here is a link to State Farm's Press Release of June 11, 2007,which State Farm entitled "Mississippi Attorney General's Lawsuit Threatens to Disrupt Hurricane Katrina Settlement Process with MIssissippi Insurance Department". 

     Here is a link to the whole available story on "Insurance Claims And Issues".
   
                                                Please Read The Disclaimer.

World Trade Center Insurance Claims Settlement: Confidentiality vs. Concealment Revisited.

    A post in this space on May 23, 2007 addressed the issue of Confidentiality vs. Concealment in or of Settlements of Bad Faith Claims under Florida law.  It is reported on May 24, 2007 that confidentiality provisions are found in a global settlement of unspecified World Trade Center Insurance Claims resulting from 911:  Charles V. Bagli, "Insurers Agree to Pay Billions at Ground Zero," New York Times Online, May 24, 2007.  It is unclear whether these confidentiality provisions apply to things other than the amount each insurance company participating in the settlement will pay.  It is unknown at this time whether the settlement agreement purports to address Insurance Coverage Claims, or whether it includes any alleged or potential Bad Faith Claims.

     It is also unclear whether discovery could be compelled in a Florida Court, on the ground that Florida law voids as concealment the attempted confidentiality of these settlement agreement provisions contained in a  settlement agreement reached in another State such as New York, in this case.   Further, what New York law may have to say about "confidentiality" vs. "concealment," if anything, is unknown to this writer.  To state the issue is the first step to be prepared for the issue.

                                                 Please Read The Disclaimer.

Removal Yes, But it Sticks Only ...

                                ...  When It Is Proof Positive!

     The Defendant that claims fraudulent joinder of other local Defendants faces the burden of putting on proof.  There must not only be allegations and assertions of fraudulent joinder, but there must also be proof that the Plaintiff sued (joined) those local Defendants fraudulently.

     This means that there must be proof that the Plaintiffs in a Hurricane Katrina CatClaim Case, for example, sued local adjusters for Bad Faith under Louisiana law, but that the only possible outcome could not result in the Plaintiffs recovering Damages against the local Defendants who were sued only for the purpose of defeating the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.

     Putting on no proof falls short of meeting this burden, said the Federal Judge granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand back to State Court in Thomas Matherne, Sr. & Anastasia Matherne v. Allstate Insurance Co. (E.D. La. Case No. 06-8120, Opinion Filed January 3, 2007).
                                  Please read the Disclaimer.

Partial Payment of Claims ... UPDATED!

     This post updates the post here on January 12, 2007 regarding:

Punitive Damages, Katrina and the Insurance Contract:  Lessons Revisited and a Tale Told in Pieces or in Parts.

   

     On January 31, 2007 Federal Judge L.T. Senter, Jr. entered an Order reducing the Punitive Damages Assessment in the Broussard case.  The Federal Judge reduced the Punitive Damages assessment in that case to 40% of what the Jury assessed, reducing the assessment from $2,500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00.  Here is a link to the Order:  Norman J. Broussard & Genevieve Broussard v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. (S.D. Miss. Case No. 1.06CV6, Order entered January 31, 2007) .  For another report on this same decision, go to the February 1, 2007 post on Insurance Claims And Issues.     

     The Federal Court's ruling on January 31, 2007 adds to the facts coming in about the bases for this lawsuit, about the Bad Faith allegations in it, and about the reasons behind the Jury's finding of entitlement to Punitive Damages under Mississippi law.

     The Homeowner's Policy involved in the Broussard case was "an 'all perils' policy in the case of the dwelling and a 'named peril' policy as to contents, i.e., windstorm."

     Second, the initial investigation by the Homeowner's Insurance Company showed clearly that the Policyholders' home "was reduced to a slab by Hurricane Katrina" and that the damage was caused more by flood than by wind, the Federal Judge wrote.

     The Insurance Company "did not obtain any expert opinion on this particular loss."

     Rather than obtaining any expert opinion, as the Federal Court noted, the Insurance Company instead established a procedure for homes reduced to nothing remaining except the slab, a procedure which it applied in the Broussard case.  The subject procedure was to use "the debris line" and declare that in the instance of only a slab remaining, all damage would be presumed to be caused by FLOOD which was NOT a covered loss, thereby leaving it to the Policyholders to bear the burden of proving damages caused by a covered loss such as WIND.

     Although not repeated at any length in the January 31, 2007 Order, the Federal Court had PREVIOUSLY RULED in that same case that the burden of proof was INSTEAD on the Insurance Company to prove at Trial in Court that all or part of the damages claimed by the Policyholders were EXCLUDED.

     The Homeowner's Insurance Company "relied on its flood exclusion to totally deny the claim."

     The Federal Judge held that there was clear and convincing evidence in the Broussard case supporting a finding by the Jury of entitlement to Punitive Damages.  There was in other words clear and convincing evidence, the Federal Judge wrote, "that Defendant acted in such a grossly negligent way as to evince willful, wanton, or reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs."

     That ruling affirmed the issue of Mr. and Mrs. Broussards' entitlement to Punitive Damages under the facts of this case.  As to the amount of Punitive Damages, to $1,000,000.00, the Mississippi Federal Court reduced them as noted, doing so both under Mississippi State law and under "due process considerations under the United States Constitution."

                                Please read the Disclaimer.

      

Jury Pools in the Wake of Katrina in Mississippi.

    Bad Faith Cases receive careful attention.  Part of the focus in every Bad Faith Case is the potential Jury Pool, or the Venire.  They are the people deciding issues of fact and who they are is clearly important.

    Before Katrina struck Mississippi, most Mississippians were like most residents of the rest of the Gulf Coast.  Few people carried Flood Insurance.  However, the focus on Insurance Coverage for Katrina Damages Claims can divert attention from the fact that many people did not have Property Insurance Coverage or  Homeowner's Insurance  either.

     They are the people who make up the Venire for Mississippi Bad Faith Cases like the recent case reported in newspaper articles and in a post here on January 15, 2007.

    Briefly, the recent case in Mississippi involved First-Party Bad Faith Claims including Punitive Damages Claims.  A Federal Judge directed a verdict for the full Policy Limits available under a Homeowner's Policy.  The case went to the Jury on the question of Punitive Damages under Mississippi law, which is fully discussed in the January 15, 2007 post.  Without repeating all of that post here, in general terms Mississippi law allows the assessment of Punitive Damages for Bad Faith Breach of Contract and it can be Bad Faith not to pay any part of Damages which are covered.

    It is reported that the Homeowner's Insurance Company in that case never made an offer.

    The Jury assessed $2,500,000.00 in Punitive Damages.

     See the detailed discussion of the situation in which these potential Jury members live today, Peter Whoriskey, "As Aid Lags, Volunteers Shoulder Rebuilding on Gulf Coast/Local Gratitude Mixes With Frustration Over Government's Failures" (Washington Post, Sunday, January 28, 2007, p. A03), and the discussion generally of Venires available for Katrina Cases across the Gulf Coast, in Insurance Claims and Issues.

                                                        Please Read The Disclaimer.

Partial Payment of Claims ....

                Punitive Damages, Katrina and the Insurance Contract:                           Lessons Revisited and a Tale Told in Pieces or in Parts.   

    An Insurance Company has been assessed $2,500,000.00 in Punitive Damages by a Jury in Federal Court in Mississippi.  Here is the Punitive Damages Verdict that was filed on Thursday, January 11, 2007:  Download Broussard_v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. Verdict January 11, 2007 (S.D. Miss. Case No. 1.06.cv6).pdf.

    The Federal case involves Claims for Damages following Hurricane Katrina.  News outlets began broadcasting the report on the evening of the day this Punitive Damages Verdict was filed, and news outlets continued to report on this Verdict the next day, as expected.  An insightful article is published online at Bloomberg.com.  Here is a link to it:  Lawrence Viele Davidson & Erik Holm, "State Farm Must Pay Couple $2.7 Million for Katrina (Update4)" (www.bloomberg.com/apps/news, dateline Jan. 11, 2007 (Bloomberg)).  The Punitive Damages Verdict was also blogged.  See for example Insurance Claims and Issues Blog.  This post will suggest some missing information that may be needed in order to understand how this Verdict was rendered and to explain something of what it means.

    As was noted at the beginning,  the  Broussard case is one of many Hurricane Katrina-related lawsuits.  It involves Insurance Coverage Claims for Damages to a Home.  It clearly also involves a claim for Punitive Damages under Mississippi law since that Punitive Damages Claim went to a jury.  Although the Complaint does not appear to be accessible in the Federal Court's online docket as the case was removed to Federal Court from Mississippi State Court, piecing together various reports about this particular case with established Mississippi case law yields the following possible scenario.

    "At its core, Plaintiffs' cause of action is based on an alleged breach of contract.  The Complaint does not even contain separate counts."  Download Broussard_v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment entered November 6, 2006 (S.D. Miss.  Case No. 1.06cv6).pdf.  The Federal Court's November 6, 2006 Order also provides the information that the Court itself did not have a lot of allegations and exhibits to go on.  Although the Complaint attached a specimen Homeowner's Policy, it was not the policy issued to Mr. and Mrs. Broussard.  "This attachment does not disclose the policy limits.  The Plaintiffs' residence apparently was reduced to a slab by the storm, although it takes a lot of reading to reach that conclusion.  The tension in the record is between the damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the manner in which their claim was handled by Defendant."  Id.

 In a later Order, the Federal Court repeated that "Plaintiffs' cause of action at its core is based on an alleged breach of contract."  The Federal Judge also acknowledged a very important Claim:  "Plaintiffs also assert that they are entitled to punitive damages and/or extra-contractual damages due to the Defendant's alleged bad faith conduct in handling and denying their claim."  Download Broussard_v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Order on Motions In Limine entered on December 28, 2006 (S.D. Miss. Case No. 1.06cv6).pdf.

    The Policyholders' Insurance Company never made an offer for any part of the  Claim.  A spokesperson for the Insurance Company is reported as stating that it was sued by the Policyholders after it had refused to pay anything on their Claim.  See the news report by Joseph B. Treaster, "State Farm Told to Pay Gulf Claim" (New York Times, Friday, January 12, 2007).

   However, according to the Federal Judge's Law Clerk and reported in the same article in The New York Times, Experts for the Insurance Company stated in unspecified documents filed in the Court File, that some damage to Mr. and Mrs. Broussard's home was caused by Wind, a Covered Peril.

    Further, before Trial of the Broussard case, the same Federal Judge ruled in other cases pending before him, that (1) presumably similar Flood or Water Exclusions will exclude Coverage for all damage caused by Flood or Water, in part here pertinent, but that (2) the Policy does not exclude all Coverage if part of the Damages are caused by Flood.  These rulings were certainly generally known, as previously noticed by a Federal Judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana, for example, and in a post on  December 5, 2006 here and in Insurance Claims and Issues Blog.

    Thereafter, the Insurance Company could defend against Punitive Damages only by (1) paying or perhaps at least making an offer to pay the clearly covered part of the Claim or (2) successfully arguing the total applicability of the Flood or Water Exclusion to exclude all damages.

    Mississippi standards for assessing Punitive Damages in First-Party Bad Faith cases have been pretty clear for a very long time.  Mississippi  requires more than proof of First-Party Bad Faith and certainly requires more than proof of carelessness, for example.  "Carelessness, however, does not rise to the level of bad faith required for plaintiff to prevail on her [Punitive Damages] claim."  Mixon v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 616 F. Supp. 139, 142 (S.D. Miss. 1985), aff'd mem., 783 F.2d 1061 (5th Cir. 1985).   Mississippi Punitive Damages law requires more than a finding that a credit life insurer, for example, in another First-Party Bad Faith case "lacked an arguable reasonable basis for denying the claim....  A further finding is required showing malice or gross negligence or disregard of the insured's rights."  Barber v. Balboa Life Insurance Co., 747 So. 2d 863, 868 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999).  These and similar rulings are further addressed at much greater length in, for example, Dennis J. Wall, Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith (2nd Ed. 1994), published by West Publishing Company online and in print.

    Further, as early as 1979 the Mississippi Supreme  Court held that a  Punitive Damages instruction is properly given to a Jury, and a First-Party Insurance Company is properly assessed Punitive Damages, where the First-Party Insurance Company declines to pay all of its Policy Coverage where some of its Coverage applies.  See Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Wetherbee, 368 So. 2d 829, 833-35 (Miss. 1979) and the cases discussed by the Supreme Court of Mississippi in that decision.  These Mississippi rules of law were visited by the same Federal Judge assigned to the Broussard lawsuit, in an earlier case in which he also cited to Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Wetherbee (Miss. 1979), for example.

    The same Federal Judge who submitted a Punitive Damages Claim to a Jury in Broussard similarly submitted a Punitive Damages Claim to a Jury several months earlier in another First-Party Bad Faith case -- which also involved a similar Claim that "Hurricane Katrina completely destroyed Plaintiffs' home" and unresolved "issues related to claim handling", particularly handling the Claim after "a report in November, 2005, indicated that damage was due in part to something other than water."  In that earlier decision, the Homeowner's Insurance Company did tender payment "in August 2006" -- and the Policyholders' Punitive Damages Claim still went to a Jury:  Download Odom_v. Armed Forces Insurance Co. (S.D. Miss. Case No. 1.05cv669, Order entered on August 31, 2006 on Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment).pdf.

    The Policyholders' lawyers in the Odom case are also the Policyholders' lawyers in the Broussard case.

    Back to the Broussard case and January 11, 2007.  At Trial, there was reportedly evidence that, at the least, the Flood or Water Exclusion did not exclude all damages. 

    The Federal Trial Judge directed a verdict on Compensatory Damages, awarding Mr. and Mrs. Broussard $233,292 under their Insurance Policy, it is reported in both of the news articles linked above.  The Federal Judge also thereby directed a verdict on entitlement to Punitive Damages.  The Jury in that case then unanimously returned its Punitive Damages Verdict less than three hours later.

    Mississippi is not, of course, the only State that requires payment of clearly covered Claims in Good Faith under First-Party Insurance Policies.  Almost all do, and recent examples always seem to be at hand, such as in Florida.  See the post entitled,  "CatClaims, Coverage, Part Disclaimer With Part Payment .... And Florida Statutory Bad Faith" on November 17, 2006, for example, in Insurance Claims and Issues Blog.  The same lessons apply in one State as in another, and in one reported case as in another with the same result.  The law applied by the  Mississippi Federal Court in the  Broussard case is not new law, and neither is the result, it appears.

REMINDER:  THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.  ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR INSURANCE ISSUE IN THAT JURISDICTION, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.

Discovery on Whether to Remand an Insurance Case.

    Remand is when a Federal District Court sends an Insurance case back to State Court that was filed in State Court in the first place, but then was "removed" to Federal Court for various reasons.   A pre-Christmas ruling in one of the Hurricane Katrina Insurance Coverage Cases teaches a lesson well learned.

    When discovery is available on the question of whether the Federal Judge should Remand the case back to State Court, or not, then the clear lesson in this new Insurance case is to take the discovery.  If the available discovery regarding Remand is not taken, then the Federal Judge may decide, not surprisingly, that the opportunity to take discovery regarding Remand knocked once, like Opportunity itself, and will not knock again, as in Download Ross and Sharon Dodds v. Nationwide (S.D. Miss. Case No. 1.06CV915, Opinion Filed December 20, 2006), and for this particular ruling see page 4.pdf.

    Best wishes to all for a Happy New Year!

REMINDER:  THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.  ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR INSURANCE ISSUE IN THAT JURISDICTION, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
 

Contamination Exclusion in First-Party Policy Held Ambiguous to 911 Damages.

    On December 21, 2006, the Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Summary Judgment and remanded for the Federal Trial Court to take evidence on the intent of a First-Party Property Insurance provision.  Here is a link to the Second Circuit Web Site, where you can reach this case by clicking on "Decisions":  Parks Real Estate Purchasing Group, et al. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., et al. (Second Circuit Case No. 05-5890, Opinion Filed December 21, 2006).  Here is a brief summary why.

    Parks Real Estate and the other Plaintiffs-Appellants in this case, filed their Complaint to recover under a First-Party Property Policy, in pertinent part, "for building damage caused by particulate matter emanating from the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers".  (Slipsheet at 1.)  Their Proof of Loss notified the insurance company that the Plaintiffs "has sustained damage" to a Building, together with Business Interruption Loss, totaling some $18,400,000.00.  (Id. at 5.)

    The Plaintiff Policyholders owned an "insured Building [that] was located a few blocks from the World Trade Center."  (Id. at 4.)  On 911, the World Trade Center Twin Towers were both struck and collapsed in a terrorist attack, causing particulates from the pulverized buildings to spread across New York City, among other things.  "The particulate matter apparently penetrated the Building and settled in its mechanical and electrical systems."  (Id. at 3.)

    The subject Policy is "an 'all-risk' property insurance policy providing that [the insurance company] would '[p]rotect against risks of direct physical loss or damage except as indicated in the Exclusions", said the Second Circuit.  (Id. at 13.)  The defendant insurance company that issued the Policy filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Coverage, arguing that the subject  Policy's "Contamination Exclusion" barred all Coverage claimed by the Plaintiffs.  This Policy's Contamination Exclusion provides that Coverage is barred for "loss or damage caused by or made worse by any kind of contamination of ... products or property covered by this insuring agreement.'"  (Id. at 5-6.)

    The Second Circuit now holds that this First-Party Property Insurance Contamination Exclusion is ambiguous, that Summary Judgment for the insurance company in this case is reversed, and, further, that all parties "should be allowed to introduce evidence" in the Federal Trial Court regarding the intent of this Contamination Exclusion.  (Id. at 18-19.)

    Parenthetically, the insurance company's Motion for Summary Judgment also presented arguments that the Policy's "Mechanical Breakdown" and "Wear and Tear" Exclusions applied.   (Id. at 6.)  The Federal District Court held however that these particular Exclusions did not apply (id. at 11), and they were not otherwise addressed by the Second Circuit.

    Best wishes to all for a Happy New Year!

REMINDER:  THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.  ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR INSURANCE ISSUE IN THAT JURISDICTION, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
 

Sigma 2005 and 2006 Results From Swiss Re.

    Swiss Re has released "sigma" results for 2005 and, tentatively, for 2006 to date.  "Sigma" is the Greek codeword used by Swiss Re to identify its computer-based reports.  A link to both reports, released separately by Swiss Re, is here.   The information is revealing.  Here is some of it.

2005

    Total Insurance Policy Premiums in 2005 were $3,426,000,000.00 or 7.7 % of the World's "Gross Domestic Product".  About 56 percent of Insurance Premiums are for Life Insurance.  There is a definite link to commerce here.   Swiss Re notes further that "the growing loan market generated more mortgage-related life insurance policies."  The rest of the Premiums went to pay for what Swiss Re categorizes as "non-life" Insurance Policies.

2006

    So far in 2006, Swiss Re's computer results reveal the third-lowest "insured losses" in the last 2 decades.  The "loss events" studied by Swiss Re's computers show that this year, typhoons and earthquakes predominated among the Catastrophe list and they "hit mainly newly industrialising countries where insured losses are relatively low."  The irreplaceable loss of Life to Catastrophes appears to be proportionately higher than Property Losses to date.  The role of Insurance available to relieve worldwide Catastrophes in 2006 is not necessarily great, it appears.

    Economic losses worldwide in 2006, Swiss Re says, total $40,000,000.00 and so far $15,000,000.00 or 37.5% "were actually covered by insurance."  There is no word on how if at all, the remaining 62.5% or $25,000,000.00 of economic losses is and are addressed in the countries where this year's Catastrophes have struck.

    Remembering to give thanks for our blessings, and remembering to remember those who may not be as fortunate,  Happy Holidays to All!

REMINDER:  THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.  ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR INSURANCE ISSUE IN THAT JURISDICTION, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.