Insurer: Victims of Houston office fire died from 'pollution'

[douglas9]

Source: Houston Chronicle

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.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6168688.html

[hobbit709]

1. What a crock of shit.

May insurance companies rot in hell.

[opihimoimoi]

2. What is that persons name??? The person who thought of this shit? We wanna know

Kevin Sewell, the atty, has his brains soaked in rum.....what a shit....

[pattmarty]

10. It's in Texas, can't you just shoot the motherfucker with a..............

.........legally concealed weapon?????

[MrModerate]

3. I was in Houston when this happened . . .

An employee of one of the businesses flipped out and started the fire to cover up some minor malfeasance.

Now I'm a pretty cynical guy, but I'm gobsmacked that the insurance ghouls would try such a tactic. I can only hope that the judge is so appalled he triples the award.

[Blue_Tires]

20. sadly, stories like this don't surprise me at all

[4lbs]

4. Interesting how "Great American" sounds a lot like that insurance company in the movie

and book "The Rainmaker" by John Grisham. The insurance company in that one was called Great Benefit.

They both use the same tactic, to try to deny payments, claims, and coverage based on their own interpretations of things.

[Occulus]

23. I wonder how "Section U" in this case will manifest itself n/t

[Gman]

5. Now that's creative weaseling

it's absolutely irresponsible but creative weaseling.

[Lost River Ledger]

6. New definition for CHUTZPAH

replaces....man asks a judge for mercy after being killing his parents because he's an orphan.

[riverdeep]

7. Insurance companies are about next to lawyers in the likeability quotient,

and stuff like this is why. Of course most people in fires die from the smoke inhalation not the actual flames, that's well-known and obvious. This story needs to be made fun of by the late night comedians to get their name out there, they need to lose as much business as possible for even trying something like this.

That's GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, remember that name.

[jberryhill]

15. Why do you not like the lawyers that are fighting the insurance company?

Oh, that's right, people should just give up their rights and do what they are told. God forbid they have access to lawyers to help them fight for their rights.

[nichomachus]

18. There are some really good lawyers

There are no good insurance companies.

[CanonRay]

8. This is exactly why corporations cannot be unfettered

[pattmarty]

11. Shit like this and these companies are just begging..................

........to be regulated at a federal level.

[gratuitous]

9. Oh, just another frivolous lawsuit!

Don't you people watch the commercials on the teevee? Why, just everyone hates frivolous lawsuits! And the Chamber of Commerce wouldn't lie to us, would they? You librul soshalists just want to run a good company out of business.

[ChicagoSchoolLiberal]

12. Without an explanation of the excess carrier's coverage...

...this entry is ueless. We have a wrongful death action, what appears to be a third party tortfeasor and the itty-bitty carrier just forking over their 1M policy limit (which is probably advisable). I have trouble attaching liability against the property owner at the outset. This probably one of many issues in a 12(b)(6) motion.

[Sabriel]

13. You can bet they didn't dare try this with the WTC claimants

What a nice bit of PR that would've been!

[KamaAina]

21. Or with the Katrina claimants

oh, wait a minute... :grr: :banghead:

[KamaAina]

22. They actually did try it with the WTC buildings themselves

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

...Silverstein was interested in acquiring the entire World Trade Center complex, and put in a bid when the Port Authority put it up for lease in 2000. Silverstein won the bid when a deal between the initial winner and the Port Authority fell through, and he signed the lease on July 24, 2001, only weeks before the towers were destroyed in the September 11 attacks.

Soon after the September 11 attacks, Silverstein declared his intent to rebuild, though ran into dispute with his insurers over whether the attacks constituted one or two occurrences. A settlement was reached in 2004, with insurers agreeing to pay out $4.55 billion, which was more than the $3.4 billion per occurrence, but was not as much as Silverstein sought.

:eyes:

[HopeHoops]

14. Those people would have died anyway, at least eventually.

Insurance companies come up with the lamest excuses. They make record profits and still raise premiums and there's nothing we can do about it. My wife's company just switched from really great insurance to somewhat less than great insurance. The premiums remain about the same, but the screw is much larger and twists much deeper. We are less than pleased.

[nichomachus]

19. They have actually tried to use that excuse

It involved a plane crash in which the airline was at fault. They tried to get out of paying damages to one family because, they claimed, the victim was gay. That meant there was a chance he would get AIDS and then he would have died in a little while anyway. That was the insurance company argument.

[L0oniX]

16. If ever there were a good reason to go berserk and machine gun these asscarrots to death...

this would be a good one.

[northofdenali]

17. Just read this to my husband, and I agree with him.

THAT IS BULLSHIT