Slabbed

We previously linked Corban the Movie on Slabbed, now we have the “Corban Book”

with 7 comments

7 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

1. JUSTICE RANDOLPH: If wind blows in my house and throws a couch up against the wall and breaks it in half, have I suffered a loss?

   MR. LANDAU: Your Honor, you cannot –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Have I suffered a loss? Have I suffered a loss when the couch gets broken in half?

   MR. LANDAU: Your Honor –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: You’re not answering my question.

   MR. LANDAU: I’m about to, your Honor. I’m sorry. The point is you cannot determine the sequencing of the loss until the event is over. So –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Until the hurricane is over?

   MR. LANDAU: Yes.

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Does it say anywhere in the policy until the hurricane is over –

   MR. LANDAU: That’s what it means, your Honor, when it says the sequencing –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Now, does it say so in the policy?

   MR. LANDAU: Yes, sir. It says “in any sequence.” We respectfully submit –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Well, let me finish the sequencing because I think you’re getting damage and loss confused, okay?

   If I take my car out there and roll it over three times, and it’s totaled, okay, so I’ve got a total loss –

   MR. LANDAU: Right.

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Loss is determined, actual cash value, at time of loss. Can we agree on that?

   MR. LANDAU: Your Honor –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: Can we agree on that? Does the policy – do I need to pull the policy out, or will you agree on it?

   MR. LANDAU: The only point I will make is, when it says “cause in any sequence” that you can’t –

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: I’m not asking you that. I’m asking you when is the value of the loss determined?

   MR. LANDAU: When the event is over that is causing the loss.

   JUSTICE RANDOLPH: When the hurricane – in your opinion, it’s when the hurricane is over?

   MR. LANDAU: Yes. Yes.

   ***

   JUSTICE PIERCE: So you’re sequencing, if 95 percent of the home was destroyed, and then we have the event of the storm surge, then you would not pay a dime?

   MR. LANDAU: Your Honor, if we prove that the storm surge was sufficient to cause – we have that burden, again, and that is absolutely crystal clear.

   If we can prove that the storm surge was sufficient to cause all of this, it is no answer then to say, ‘Yeah, but I’m going to show it — I’m going to have somebody come in and say, “Look, guess what, the window was broken before the storm surge came and then wiped away the whole house.

   But you don’t get into those kinds of issues precisely because of the sequencing of the damage.

   JUSTICE PIERCE: So you wouldn’t pay a dime?

   MR. LANDAU: If – again, we wouldn’t pay a dime for things where we can carry our burden, which is right there in the policy, of showing that the loss was caused concurrently –

   JUSTICE PIERCE: I’m giving you — the example is 95 percent of the home is destroyed, the flood comes in and gets the other five percent, and you know that.

   Does your interpretation of the word “sequence” mean you pay zero?

   MR. LANDAU: Yes, your Honor.

   

   Brian Martin

   June 26, 2009 at 5:27 pm

   Reply
2. [ Scratches head ] Heck I thought it was the wind pushing and moving everything. In fact, had there been no wind ? then what. If it isn’t believed it was wind then please someone explain the thought of the impossibility of things moving without force.

   

   Robert

   June 26, 2009 at 10:10 pm

   Reply
3. Laughing hysterically….

   State Farm, Allstate, etc…. must be very pissed off right now. Nationwide and its legal team did an absolutely horrible job of arguing the ACC. Instead of arguing some semblance of a rational interpretation that would have allowed the ACC to withstand judicial scrutiny and have some application, these clowns may very well have sunk the whole ACC boat in Mississippi.

   As the saying goes… the bad (Allstate and State Farm) suffer for the worse, Nationwide.

   

   NRB

   June 27, 2009 at 11:20 am

   Reply
4. Landau was the attorney who persuaded the 5th Circuit to overturn Senter in the Leonard case, finding that ACC is not ambiguous and is enforceable. The 5th ruled on ACC without questioning the practical application the way the MSSC did.

   State Farm and Allstate filed briefs with the MS Supreme Court and neither made a compelling argument for ACC.

   Copeland for USAA argued for a narrower interpretation in person than in his motions and briefs. On paper, he wants ACC to exclude any damage that flooding “contributed to.” In person, he pretended that the “contributed to” standard would only exclude damage that would not have happened “but for” flooding. There were billions of dollars of losses that would be excluded by “contributed to” but not excluded by “but for.”

   

   Brian Martin

   June 28, 2009 at 10:47 am

   Reply
5. Thanks, Brian, could you explain a little more about the distinction in “contributed to” and “but for” – particularly difference in impact on policyholder damage claims?

   

   nowdoucit

   June 28, 2009 at 12:41 pm

   Reply
6. It’s all about the Burden of Proof.
   If insurers merely have to prove that flooding contributed to the loss, they will be able to invoke the exclusion broadly and force policyholders to sue.
   On the other hand, if insurers have to prove that the loss would not have happened “but for” flooding, they have a much narrower exclusion.
   “Contributed to” lets the insurer base the dispute on how much damage flooding might have caused.
   “But for” focuses the dispute focus on how much damage the winds could have caused.
   “Contributed to” is a guarantee of endless litigation.

   

   Brian Martin

   June 28, 2009 at 6:41 pm

   Reply
7. “”“Contributed to” is a guarantee of endless litigation.”"

   “Endless litigation” is a guarantee of endless profits.

   I could not believe my eyes when I read Mr. Copeland’s testimony. USAA adjusters in the field did not process claims in the manner asserted by Mr. Copeland(oral argument). I think Copeland should train USAA’s adjusters to process claims in the fashion, he asserted in oral arguments with the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

   

   steve

   June 30, 2009 at 5:34 pm

   Reply