Pantagraph.com | Money | Appeals court vacates $1M award in Katrina case against State Farm

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

charlemagne wrote on Apr 9, 2008 8:30 AM:

" 'My house got destroyed from flooding related to hurricane Katrina, I previously chose not to carry insurance for flooding to lower my premimums. I sent in a claim to State Farm anyways, which got declined. I now will sue State Farm since they only covered me for what I paid for. I think I am special and my neighbors, who paid for flood insurance, should help pay for my house, even though I saved money by not paying for the coverage. Now where do I find a lawyer and a judge looking to make a name for themselves by going after the big-bad insurance company?'

That what insurance is folks, you pay to transfer risk. It is up to you how much risk you want to transfer. These people decided that they didn't need flood insurance and when their house got flooded, they regreated it. How would you feel as a policy holder who had flood insurance if everyone who didn't have it got covered while you have been paying all along. Good job State Farm. "

CBD1 wrote on Apr 8, 2008 6:11 PM:

" Greed::: You did not mention the insurance Agency/Company. Please, share. "

T wrote on Apr 8, 2008 12:47 PM:

" While I will agree that they should not get what is not due them SF needs to pay those folks that are due a claim and stop "cooking" up stories of why they should not be paid. Try being a good neighbor and stop lying. "

T wrote on Apr 8, 2008 12:45 PM:

" So what came first? The wind or the water? Try again SF'ers Your company just twisted the real truth and left all these folks holding the bag while SF said no to their claims "

Not so Political wrote on Apr 8, 2008 5:44 AM:

" if you people would read the article you would understand that this case can be retired in the lower courts again. the problem came with how the judge handled the case the first time in trial. SF has no gotton out of anything just prolong the time before they will have to wright the check. "

Jusmyopinion wrote on Apr 8, 2008 5:22 AM:

" People amaze me. Why do you build in a flood zone or buy a house in a flood zone and then wonder why the insurance won't cover it? You don't have flood coverage, your house gets moved off it's foundation and filled with mud and you want to claim the wind did it so you can claim. Just because State Farm is a big corporation doesn't mean it's against the little guy. They just don't give in to criminal minded people trying to bend the rules. "

greed wrote on Apr 8, 2008 4:59 AM:

" Nobody is forced to purchase State Farm insurance. I was a policyholder for 25 years before even considering getting a competitive quote for homeowner's and auto coverage. I did so 8 years ago, getting a quote from the largest Independent Agency in Bloomington. I saved a little over 30%, and still with a major company. I have given State Farm the opportunity to re-quote my homeowner’s and auto coverage from time to time, but they have not been competitive. They are friendly though, and I still have a life policy with them. "

jim4 wrote on Apr 8, 2008 3:47 AM:

" Why do you people say that State Farm has won this case? That is not true. The appeals court only ruled against the $1 million punitive damages. They ordered a new trial for the other damages.

For all the people responding that they should have had flood insurance, that is true but that should not let State Farm off the hook for wind damage. That is what the suit is about. The wind came before the water. How much damage was done by the wind? When roofs are found in trees above the water line it is a sure thing that wind took them up there. Do you think that these people are not entitled to wind damage? That does not mean that they should be compensated for the total value of the house (unless it is completely destroyed by wind) but for the portion destroyed before the flood. Houses are destroyed by hurricanes that do not flood. "

Citizen wrote on Apr 7, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Punitive damages??? Apparently the pain and suffering that State Farm caused was worse than the pain and suffering they brought on themselves by living in a coastal area. Maybe the original verdict was because State Farm has figured out how to control the weather and it is all their fault.

Isn't there a biblical proverb about building your house on a rock and not on the sand.... maybe that was to be interpreted literally. "

BN REPUBLICAN wrote on Apr 7, 2008 11:01 PM:

" I'd say he sleeps very well. "

100% American wrote on Apr 7, 2008 10:44 PM:

" I grow tired of hearing the people of this town complain about State Farm. State Farm is a fortune 31 company. How many other fortune 500 Corporate offices are located in small communities versus large cities such as Chicago, New York, etc.?

Where would Bloomington-Normal and its surrounding communities be without State Farm and the few other large companies that provide jobs in this area? This relatively small city in central Illinois is financially thriving because of the large companies, such as State Farm, ISU, Mitsubishi, and Country Companies! These companies not only pay their fair share of taxes, they also give back to the community with sizeable charitable donations. Think of that the next time you bash big business!

And, thank goodness State Farm has a diligent legal team. As a result of their dedication, they uncovered corruption in the system! People should be focused on that factual piece of the case.
"

cocoa wrote on Apr 7, 2008 10:28 PM:

" To T ~ I'm sure Ed sleeps fine at night, as do State Farm's employees, agents, and agent staff members. They know when they go to bed at night that they have helped a lot of people each day handle the losses they have coverage for on their policies. Did you catch that? I'll repeat it to be certain you get it: "the losses they have coverage for on their policies." No policy should = no coverage. By not getting the proper insurance, you are assuming the risk yourself if something happens you chose not to get proper coverage on. You relentlessly bash State Farm every opportunity you get, yet I notice you were conspicuously absent from any of the articles talking about Dickie Scruggs getting caught for bribery. Interesting coincidence, no? "

Not ForNothing wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:58 PM:

" State Farm may be "big business" to you Annie, but the only people that would complain about this ruling are people that simply don't understand the principle of insurance. Some people try and treat their insurance like some kind of savings account. So when something happens, even something that is CLEARLY EXCLUDED in ANY insurance policy, they expect to get paid because they think they are owed. That is the fundamental reason litigation spun so ridiculously out of control. That and what Charlemagne said about lawyers trying to make a name for themselves. And if you do a little research on the Katrina lawyers, it seems they have some pretty nasty skeletons in their closets. What? You mean they aren't just out to protect the innocent people of the gulf coast?

And it seems pretty simple to me. If I lived 6 feet below sea level, I might think about getting some flood insurance.
"

Proud Conservative wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:40 PM:

" T, most State Farmers sleep pretty well, thank you...especially since they knew SF was right all along.

Now the courts agree that SF's policy is clear, SF didn't defraud its customers, and if it weren't for some greedy, slick plaintiffs' attorneys and document thieves, this would have all been over long ago.

On a personal note, as a SF policyholder, why should my premium dollars go to subsidize people who didn't have the proper coverage for the risk they presented? Seems if you live near the water, you need different coverage than those who don't. It's a simple concept. Nighty night! "

dwarf wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:36 PM:

" Thank goodness.

As a SF policy holder, I appreciate not having to subsidize this crazy lawsuit.

Frankly, the plaintiffs were in the wrong the whole time... This was clearly not a covered loss under their policy. In the environment immediately post-Katrina, though, SF was unfairly painted as the victim... It's taken until now for the furor to subside. "

Bhtatm wrote on Apr 7, 2008 9:02 PM:

" To Lurg86...I feel so sorry for you that you really don't understand. You poor thing, a little education would do you good. "Profits in the billons of dollars every year"...do your research, SF lost money several years in a row...and the billions over the last 2 years came from sound investments. SF's underwriting has often netted a loss. Meaning, SF takes in less premium than they are paying on expenses and claims....makes sense now? "

mickeybaby wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:33 PM:

" Well said, underdog. What part of 'flood not covered' do these people not understand? "

Ted Kennedy's Swim Instructor wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:21 PM:

" Good for State Farm - this is the right decision. All this liberal whining is because most people fail to understand how insurance works. Insurance companies absolutely do not insure against flood damage of any kind because it is a losing bet. When insurance companies look at a flood plain, they see an area where a flood has happened in the past - and WILL happen again in the future. Thus, insurance companies have no reason to offer insurance against claims that they know will happen - claims that will happen in widespread numbers because floods cause destruction on a huge scale. "

easy wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:13 PM:

" To "T": Ed responds,"On a big pile O money" "

T wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:07 PM:

" Ed how do you sleep at nite? "

underdog wrote on Apr 7, 2008 8:03 PM:

" Annie, a policy holder pays thousands a year??? On what planet? If people had purchased the proper coverage to protect them against loss, there would be no problem. The losses sustained by people that are the result of a flood are NOT COVERED under a home policy. That has to be purchased through the federal government although your agent can help set that up. I'm sure everyone in an area threatened by flood were told at one point by a lender/realtor/insurance agent how flood insurance works.

And $1mil punitive damages? That isn't even to cover the property. That's for what?!?...pain and suffering as the result of realizing you should understand how your insurance works before something happens? "

charlemagne wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:32 PM:

" I am not a policy holder or an employee, and I have seen the damage in person, as I have volunteered there 3 separate times and have seen the personal side of it, people's lives destroyed. With all of that being said, I thought State Farm was correct all along. What we had was some lawyers trying to make a name for themselves by ignoring the law. I'm glad in the end, justice won. "

Proud Conservative wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Ahhhh...the haters come out from under their rocks. It's been a long, hard struggle, but the truth is finally coming out. State Farm is proving - in decision after decision - to be in the right. It says something when the nation's premier plaintiff attorney resorts to bribery in an attempt to win his case. A lot of people have worked countless hours over nearly three years to make the truth come to light. Congratulations State Farm employees, agents and customers! "

I am Me wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:20 PM:

" Don't feed the trolls. "

JMK wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:13 PM:

" One more thing! As a policy holder (and not an employee), thank you State Farm for protecting the rest of the policy holder dollars to pay legitimate claims and keep premiums competitive. I never worry about if State Farm will pay my legitimate claim should I need it in the future. "

JMK wrote on Apr 7, 2008 7:09 PM:

" You are funny Annie. I'm glad you started the flaming nice and early, but you should have read the article first. It says nothing about anyone's policy being dropped. Are you from MS - I hear a lot of them don't read very well. "

Annie Oakley wrote on Apr 7, 2008 6:47 PM:

" you have got to be kidding me? wow. state farm, you really take the cake. people pay you thousands of dollars every year to cover their homes and the first incident they have, no matter the damage, you drop them like a rock. you make me sick. "

Kevin wrote on Apr 7, 2008 6:44 PM:

" screwed again by big money "

Lurg86 wrote on Apr 7, 2008 6:37 PM:

" State Farm has the best legal defense money can buy as proved by this ruling. No wonder they boast profits in the billions of dollars every year. We know for sure who is absorbing the loss. Now Pantatgraph censor, print this. I'll bet you don't have the nerve. "

protohooman wrote on Apr 7, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Like a good neighbor.............. "