E-mails may aid Katrina homeowners' case

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 · Last updated 6:22 a.m. PT
E-mails may aid Katrina homeowners' case

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

NEW ORLEANS -- E-mails sent by officials of an engineering
firm that assessed Hurricane Katrina claims suggest that State
Farm Insurance Co. wanted engineers to blame damage on flooding
so that it could make minimum settlements with policyholders.

The e-mails, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, indicate
that State Farm was threatening to dismiss Raleigh, N.C.-based
Forensic Analysis & Engineering Corp. less than two months after
Katrina hit on Aug. 29, 2005.

Attorneys for homeowners suing State Farm claim the e-mails
support their argument that the insurer pressured its engineers
to alter their reports on storm-damaged homes so that
policyholders' claims could be denied.

State Farm denies that the company pressured engineers to
alter their conclusions.

-snip-

Read more: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Katrina_State_Farm.html

[hootinholler]

1. Like a good neighbor...

State Farm is there to rip you off when you're down.

-Hoot

[WePurrsevere]

2. Kick

:kick:

[intheflow]

3. Lawyers: E-mails prove case against State Farm

Source: Biloxi Sun-Herald

New Orleans - Attorneys for homeowners suing State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. have long accused the insurer of pressuring engineers to alter reports on Hurricane Katrina-damaged homes so that claims could be denied.

(snip)

The e-mail also says King didn't want local engineers to inspect properties because they were "too emotionally involved" and were "working very hard to find justifications to call it wind damage when the facts only show water induced damage." She was also apparently upset that a report was based upon eyewitness accounts, the e-mail said.

In a reply dated Oct. 18, 2005, Down questioned the insurer's motivations and questioned if there was an ethical problem with State Farm telling the firm what to put in reports. He also suggested that on another occasion, State Farm asked the firm to remove information from a report because "they would then have to settle."

"I really question the ethics of someone who wants to fire us simply because our conclusions don't match hers," Down wrote in an e-mail dated Oct. 18, 2005.

(more)

Read more: http://www.sunherald.com/218/story/29233.html

---

Although this is datelined New Orleans, this story is about State Farm's criminal (lack of) response to Mississippi claims.

What I really like is how eyewitness accounts don't matter. By this logic, car accidents can only be reported by people who did not see or experience them as they happened. :eyes:

[TwilightGardener]

4. What a pity for State Farm that it didn't figure out how to make

those damning e-mails go "bye-bye" like Karl Rove did.

[Kool Kitty]

13. That was my first thought, too.

[EFerrari]

5. merh told me about this. I'm glad these bastards got caught.

K&R

[gratuitous]

6. Don't send inspectors, they might get too emotionally involved

Instead, let someone with a financial interest sitting at a desk 500 miles away make the fine distinction between wind damage (covered) and water damage (not covered).

Someone at DU (probably tombstoned by now) called John Edwards a "shit-sucking trial lawyer" last week. I wonder if the folks in Mississippi consider the lawyers representing them against State Farm to be shit-suckers?

[harpboy_ak]

14. Edwards made his money doing little guy class actions

John Edwards made his career fighting insurance companies.

[jakem]

7. Ahh, sweet email servers... what will you expose next.... nt

[truedelphi]

8. Coastline Mississippi took a battering. And like a Grim Reaper,

State Farm was there.

Their excuse for not properly crediting policy holders for their claims? Well, they say, had a lot of claims filed against them (I forget the exact number they claimed - but seem to recall it was over 200,000.)

Doesn't matter how many claims were filed. If a claim is legit and from a legit pollicy holder, it needs to be satisfied. There is even an insurance entity that assists insurance companies when there are just too many claims in any given time period for one firm to handle. (I forget the name for it.) But it sounds like State Farm was just too greedy to even want to spend time doing the type of processing that would have helped in dealing with the large number of claims.

[intheflow]

10. You should see the billboard signs SF has down here:

"Together we'll rebuild." I get ill every time I drive by one of those signs. :puke:

[noamnety]

12. kick

Saw this too late to recommend.

I am down in Buras, LA this week, and nothing in that surprises me.

[uppityperson]

9. kick for ethics and good job getting this together.

In a reply dated Oct. 18, 2005, Down questioned the insurer's motivations and questioned if there was an ethical problem with State Farm telling the firm what to put in reports. He also suggested that on another occasion, State Farm asked the firm to remove information from a report because "they would then have to settle."

"I really question the ethics of someone who wants to fire us simply because our conclusions don't match hers," Down wrote in an e-mail dated Oct. 18, 2005.

"But what about the obvious fact that SF would love to see every report come through as water damage so that they can make the minimum settlement," he wrote."

[HeeBGBz]

11. Do these guys work at the White House?

What a load of horse shit. They need to pay on these legitimate claims or get out of the insurance business. Greedy mofos.

k&r