When a very good reporter like Randy Diamond of the Palm Beach Post is writing the following:
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many insurers have pressured state lawmakers to implement what is known as Anti-Concurrent-Causation Clauses. Insurers can use the clause to refuse to pay for wind losses on homes that had also experienced flood damage. The purpose of the clause is to override coverage for an insured claim if, at or about the same time, an uncovered event occurs. Insurance policies don’t cover flood damage so insurance companies can use the clause to deny a claim . . . .
then you know there is a problem with the way insurance companies are being perceived by the public regarding Katrina claims, and the way anti-concurrent cause language is being explained. Here’s a link to Randy’s story. You know what I think about this, just a few days ago I wrote a post on this subject that was, as they say in NoDak, as long as an ex-wife’s memory.
Last week, I said I was going to write another post on the Fifth Circuit’s Leonard decision, and specifically address some points raised in a very good post on the Merlin Law Group’s blog. I intend to do that, but I’m not ready just yet, I’m still studying a few things in the briefs. Now Chip Merlin — at last they put a name on their posts — has written another good post on anti-concurrent cause language and the Tuepker oral arguments at the Fifth Circuit. I part ways with some of this analysis, but it is good analysis nonetheless. I’ll explain in greater detail later this week.
In yet more anti-concurrent news, I am told that the arrival of the Appleman’s anti-concurrent cause article I wrote is so close that, if it was Santa Claus, we could hear sleigh bells jingling.