Perhaps Lynda can explain why this is the policyholder’s fault?
From the oral arguments in Corban, of which Lynda is obviously not familar. In Nationwide’s world it wasn’t the covered peril that controls, rather the mythical uncovered peril that might have destroyed the property had that pesky covered peril not occured.
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.
Lynda care to guess how the court ruled on this? Denial is a terrible thing.
sop
[...] Perhaps Lynda can explain why this is the policyholder's fault … View the Contact Powered by Tools [...]
Perhaps Lynda can explain why this is the policyholder's fault … Tools
January 6, 2010 at 10:33 am
I’ll explain it…but you won’t listen. The answer is, the policy had a “Concurrent Causation” clause that EXCLUDED the damage, regardless of whether wind or water came first. The exclusion was in the policy when the policy was issued. The insured had a copy of the policy. Had the insured READ his policy, he would have KNOWN of the exclusion and COULD HAVE ASKED his agent for a policy that did not have this exclusion. His agent COULD HAVE provided such a policy. And he COULD HAVE provided flood coverage. Again, if the insured had simply purchased adequate Flood insurance, the concurrent causation clause in his homeowners policy would be totally irrelevant. The Flood policy would have paid 100% of the loss up to the limits of the policy. The insured could have rebuilt. No problem. The ONLY reason there is a question of coverage regarding the Nationwide policy is BECAUSE the insured either did not buy flood insurance AT ALL or didn’t buy sufficient limits.
So, to recap: The insured could have bought sufficient flood insurance and could have recouped 100% of his loss through that flood policy. And, he could have read his policy, discovered the limitation of his coverage and, at least, made an informed decision about whether to keep that policy or buy something different. He did neither of the these things. And, that why it is HIS fault.
Lynda
January 6, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Actually the problem isn’t that I’m not listening but before I comment further I’d like you to add some color to your recap paragraph. Are you saying that Flood Insurance or Excess Flood insurance covers wind damage? If not then what kind of wind policy would you recommend for the Corbans?
sop
sop81_1
January 6, 2010 at 8:27 pm
While we wait for Lynda to give us more insight into insurance contracts and anti concurrent causation how about a few words from our ‘sponsors’:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fW8jMWiLXo]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXpUVxhZggY]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f51maMnJHdc]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pzNSoS7Nb4]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HNKqffU3Cc]
and my personal favorite that appears only on Youtube
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7NIWYeIxmE]
sop
sop81_1
January 7, 2010 at 9:31 am
Lynda, as the MS Supreme Court correctly reaffirmed, an insurance loss attaches when the loss occurs. As far as I know that has always been the law everywhere. The Nationwide interpretation has never been affirmed by anyone.
A loss caused by hurricane winds is a covered loss. It does not become uncovered if flooding happens hours later.
The National Flood Insurance Program offers single-peril coverage for losses caused by flooding only; not for losses caused by wind before any flooding. If Nationwide or any other Write Your Own insurer knowingly billed NFIP for losses caused by winds, they commmitted fraud. They have a contract with NFIP that requires them to handle flood claims and combined wind and flood losses with a fiduciary responsibility to NFIP and federal taxpayers. They are explicitly not allowed to exploit their conflict of interest by billing NFIP for wind losses. They also should be required to explain how they divided the wind loss from the flood loss at each property that suffered damage from both perils, and should be required to prove how much of the loss had been caused by flooding in order to deny coverage under their own policy. In many states, they would not be allowed to ignore this responsibility.
Many of the Katrina wind/water cases involved homeowners who did have flood insurance, but the total loss cannot be assigned to flooding if flooding was not solely responsible for the loss. NFIP is not intended as a taxpayer subsidy of the insurance industry’s liabilities.
Brian Martin
January 7, 2010 at 2:50 pm
I’ll add that the overwhelming majority of HO policies are written on a standard form approved by the MID. The ACC is on virtually every policy and is non negotiable. Policies underwritten by non admited carriers would be the exception to this but represents a tiny fraction of the market’s capacity.
Insurance Defense Attorney David Rossmiller, whom Lynda should know from his Scruggs/Delaughter blogging has written extensively on the ACC and argues it does not apply to Hurricanes and was never intended to serve as a trap door to void the very peril for which the policy was purchased. The reasoning is simple, Hurricane losses occur sequentially (in the case of Katrina the wind blows very hard for several hours then the surge arrived) not concurrently (ie a noncovered peril simutaneously with a covered peril).
Again with standard form policies the consumer has no ability to negotiate pricing or terms. Legally this is known as a “contract of adhesion” and clauses that are ambigious are resolved in favor of the insured. Though the courts don’t generally use this line of reasoning with the ACC it doesn’t change the fact that allowing insurers to sell bait and switch policies that contain trap doors is plain bad public policy as it is nothing but a glorified scam.
Finally as other lawyers have pointed out there is also the long standing common law rule that coverage follows premiums. I think that too has it’s roots in preventing the kind of trap doors that void coverage for otherwise covered perils also known as bait and switch scams.
Lynda I took the liberty of reading your comments about Bobby Delaughter on the Folo blog. While the guts it took to post your comments using your real name is admirable I was reminded of the denial remarks I directed at you a day or so ago. In particular I was thinking of DARVO, which a read of your comment on this thread well illustrates. It was also the standard MO at that old Folo blog, a defense mechanism, used to attack Cori and Kerri Rigsby or run you off.
You seem like a decent person and I know your company didn’t act badly but if you want to keep your head buried in the sand please be my guest. The decision makers and our advocates in DC know the score even if the political class that is owned by the insurers up in Jackson pretends otherwise because it is in DC and the Federal Courts that will make the remedies.
Finally back to Bobby Delaughter. When our judges forget that we are a nation of laws rather than a nation of men terrible things happen. The only Judge in this country lazy and intellectually stupid enough to put her name under your new fangled interpretation of the ACC is a right wing idealogue named Edith Jones who is the chief judge in the fifth circuit. One of her more notorious rulings involved upholding the murder conviction of a man whose public defender slept through the proceedings. Suppose Delaugter is innocent like you think, what kind of chance you reckon even an innocent man has with that kind of judge? The politization of our judicial system cuts both ways.
sop
sop81_1
January 7, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Comment deleted by Sop.
Gonesouth
January 8, 2010 at 7:37 am
I don’t want to dogpile here, as I really am interested. To what agent or firm should I take my business if I want to avoid an anti-concurrent causation clause? Who, for just a plain old $150,000 house, will write such a policy, and how much will it cost? I, unlike many consumers, am aware that I can sometimes bargain to buy down my wind deductible, or to reduce the amount the company claims it would cost to rebuild my house. But I am unaware that I can bargain to change the policy terms for an H0-3 or similar policy.
jamy
January 8, 2010 at 10:53 am
Brian, I understand what the court “affirmed” but I take issue with the idea that it was “correct”. It is a BIG problem for Mississippi that the courts here too often fail to uphold the terms of an insurance policy. That is exactly why so many insurance companies refuse to do business here and why those that do have to charge more for their policies because they are so unsure of what the court will force then to cover.
Yes, an insurance contract is a “non-negotiable” contract (to some extent) but that shouldn’t make it invalid. Very few contracts are fully negotiable. Before entering into any contract, you can (and should) know what terms are negotiable and which ones are not. You can (and should) know how one company’s contract compares to another before you buy. (For example, a new car warranty. One has a 50,000 mile/36 month warranty. Another has a 100,000 mile/5 year warranty. You DO take this information into consideration when you buy, don’t you? If NOT, should you be entitled to the 100/000 mile warranty just because you didn’t know you had an option to buy a different car with such a warranty? )
Now, there ARE some exclusions/limitations that appear in ALL insurance contracts…just as there are some exclusions/limitations that are common to every automobile warranty. Example: Homeowners policies do not cover “water damage”. Auto warranties do not cover “road hazard” damage. There is a valid reason for these exclusions and that is: “IF” these hazards were included, the losses expected from those hazards would have to be included in the base price of policy (or the price of the car, in the case of warranty). MOST people don’t WANT to pay for this increased cost because MOST people don’t need protection for those particular perils, therefore the coverage is not included in the base contract. But, the people who NEED and WANT protection from these perils CAN buy it.
Again, it all comes down to personal responsibilty. Before you buy a home, you need to know how much it is going to cost to PROPERLY protect your investment. If you can’t afford it, for whatever reason, you should not buy that particular home.
Now…the insurance industry IS getting smarter about underwriting risks located in high risk areas such as the coast. In the past, we believed (like many of you still do) that wind and water were equally destructive so, we looked ONLY at distance from the shore when we evaluated risk potential ( for underwriting acceptance AND for establishing rate need). We now know that STORM SURGE is MUCH more destructive than wind. And, we now have technology that will allow us to better predict the potential for storm surge at any particular spot. That will allow us tailor our rates and underwriting guidelines to more closely match the potential for loss from wind Vs loss from water. Homeowners with little potential for storm surge damage will find it easy to buy affordable homeowners insurance because companies will be more confident of their expected loss estimates. But, as long as companies have to pay for storm surge losses, they must EITHER refuse to write ANY policies or CHARGE YOU for the exposure. Bottom line is…the choice belongs to residents on the coast. Do all of you who are well elevated want to continue paying the price for the low-lying property owners who don’t buy flood insurance? It really is that simple. If sufficient flood insurance is purchased and sufficient limits of homeowners insurance is purchased, homeowners could avoid these problems. Let the Federal Flood program and the homeowners insurer decide between themselves how much of the damage, if any was “wind”. They’ll sort it out while you are busy rebuilding your home. (No, SOP, I’m not saying that the flood policy covers wind damage. When you’ve got a structure left standing, it is fairly easy to figure out what damage was caused by wind and what was caused by water. In that case, the HO policy would pay the wind damage and the flood policy will cover the water damage. The issue is when there is nothing left but the slab. In that case, the flood policy will cover the total loss of the structure, up to the policy limit. Period. They won’t be care if wind broke a window before the surge washed the house away. They won’t care if a few shingles were blown off the roof. The won’t even care if large tree crashed through the roof. ) They’ll pay full policy limits. THEN, if they come up with any evidence that there was some sort of preexisting wind damage, they’ll subrogate against the HO policy. THEY will do that. YOU won’t have to worry with it. You probably won’t even KNOW about it.)
lynda
January 9, 2010 at 11:17 am
Lynda no one said contracts of adhesion are not valid and just because you don’t “believe” literally decades of court rulings are “correct” doesn’t give the the right to make up your own law when it suits your purposes.
In fact all the insurance companies pay big bucks to lawyers who knew the law when those contracts are drafted. You seem to forget that but if there is a consistent theme to your positions it is one where insurers take no responsiblity for their business decisions. While the associated implications that management of these insuers are incompetence due to writing contracts where they were ignorant of the established law is amusing I don’t think it is the reality here. What does it say about the predatory mindset in ‘insurance by Lynda’ where consumers need to get legal representation before they do business with an insurance company and polices they were purchased to cover wind damage don’t. Imagine what a mess it would be if everyone needed lawyers before they opened a bank account, obtained a credit card and the like. I don’t think I like Lynda’s world and I know it is not reality.
You are right about standing structures being easy to adjust. In the case of Tom MacIntosh the evidence was very clear and the engineer said so and was fired for writing such a report. Tell me Lynda is this good claims adjusting?
Another question I asked you did not answer was exactly what kind of wind policy does a coastal policyholder need to purchase, given the ones they had and were charged for did not pay. Please be very specific in your answer and also deal in the reality that the law was very well established in this area?
Also you were aksed to explain Nationwide’s position that if wind destroyed 95% of the house and flood the rest why Nationwide by their own admission would not pay a dime. Explain what basis in the law prior to 2005 and post Corban that would support such a position?
Also Jamy asked you a question regarding anti concurrent causation and the HO3 form policy that contains several non negotiable clauses including ACC.
For those interested in learning facts over spin here are some good links from our archives:
Anti-concurrent causation intended to contractually overturn efficient proximate cause – according to in-house attorney for State Farm.
On the Meaning of Lecky King Taking the 5th Amendment
Merlin picks up SLABBED post on State Farm’s anti-concurrent causation language and drives the point home
Federal District Court Judge offers tutorial – proof of loss and segregation of damages
Chip Merlin asks Why is the property insurance industry against its own customers?
The Herald Tribune Takes the Allstate Challenge and Slams Claims Practices
sop
sop81_1
January 9, 2010 at 11:37 am
I hate back to back posts but this one question I think cuts to the heart of the matter though the ones so far left unanswered are also important.
So Lynda for the sake of argument lets say I agree with you that the policyholders didn’t read the policy and understand its meaning or hire a lawyer to do so for them. Let’s further suppose that a few policyholders did just what you suggested and read ther policy and reserached what they did not understand in the terms (after all insurance lawyers need insurance too).
When researching the anti concurrent clause the policyholder found this article by a noted insurance defense lawyer:
And then found reference to analysis by the same attorney applied by a federal judge:
So after additional research it is clear the law in this area while complex is established and was instituted to deal with concurrent loss situations involving earth movement and landslides. I can understand why an insurer would want it in MIssissippi, after all we have New Madrid fault risk in the northern part of our state.
So now explain to me, like I am in 6th grade, exactly how a learned policyholder would know their insurer would suddenly “not agree” with the law in this area and for the first time use it to deny coverage?
How do you think a murderer would fare in court if his defense was he didn’t think existing laws against it were not correct? Perhaps that is why the rule of law is so important in protecting our collective rights.
sop
sop81_1
January 9, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Lynda says “Brian, I understand what the court “affirmed” but I take issue with the idea that it was “correct”. It is a BIG problem for Mississippi that the courts here too often fail to uphold the terms of an insurance policy. That is exactly why so many insurance companies refuse to do business here and why those that do have to charge more for their policies because they are so unsure of what the court will force then to cover.”
The big problem for Lynda is the courts upheld the terms of the insurance policy where wind is covered under a wind policy. Somehow because of that insurance companies don’t want to do business here? What a crock. Reminds me of organized crime.
Gonesouth
January 9, 2010 at 1:58 pm
My posts are going to be out of order because I’ve got one thing on my mind that I need to address before I respond to your other comments. It concerns the Corbans. I’ve clipped a segment of the news release regarding the Supreme court ruling that demonstrates WHY companies run scared of Mississippi. The issue is whether their HO policy excluded “storm surge”. Here is the clip:
“The homeowner’s policy at issue in Corban expressly excluded, in relevant part, “[w]ater
damage, meaning: (1) flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or
spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind . . . .” Id. at 11 ¶ 23. Plaintiffs argued
that “storm surge” was a covered peril because the policy defines “water damage” and does not include storm surge within that definition.”
Now, could somebody explain to me why the insurance company would to use the specific words “storm surge” in order communicate to the intent of the water exlusion? If “storm surge’ is not “water” or “wave” or “water driven by wind” or “tidal water” then what the hell is it??????
This is a perfect example of WHY your insurance policy has to be 20 pages long instead on only 2 or 3. We have to include and define every word in Webster’s dictionary so that some tort lawyer can’t come back and claim ambiguity.
And, it also explains WHY a claims adjuster must use the concurrent causation clause so UNambiguously. There is no room for discretion from one claim to another BECAUSE some attorney will use that as “proof” of ambiguity. So, it has to be one way or another. Every time. Was that the way it was originally intended to be used? Probably not. That was way before my time and I wasn’t in on the discussion but, my guess is that it was intended to avoid payment on losses where any evidence of damage by a covered peril has been destroyed by a non-covered peril.
lynda
January 9, 2010 at 3:24 pm
SOP & Gonesouth, Brian said the courts had “correctly” held the concurrent causation clause to be unenforcable. I said that I do not believe their opinion to be “correct” That is MY opinion and, last time I checked, I was still entitled to it. The concurrent causation clause has been around for decades and over the course of the years, courts across the county have affirmed that the concurrent causation clause is NOT ambiguous and IS enforceable. What makes this particular court so much more intellegent that all the ones that came before? In MY opinion, they ruled incorrectly.
SOP, regarding your comment: “So now explain to me, like I am in 6th grade, exactly how a learned policyholder would know their insurer would suddenly “not agree” with the law in this area and for the first time use it to deny coverage…” are you suggesting that insurers have never denied coverage in Mississippi due to concurrent causation? Or, are you suggesting that Nationwide KNEW in 2005 how the courts would eventually rule in 2009? Or, are you suggesting that they just thought they could get away with something that they KNEW all along was contrary to the law? Is THAT what you are saying?
It was my intent, when posting here, to try to provide some perspective regarding the high cost of insurance in Mississippi. I did not come here to be attacked by 1/2 dozen people at a time. Gone South, you don’t have to believe me when I tell you that insurance companies aren’t eager to do business in Mississippi. I don’t care. But your refusal to believe won’t change the facts.
You all want to take a hand full of unique & isolated situations and use them to condemn the entire insurance industry, even to the extent of comparing us to “organized crime”. Just who do you think we are? Let me tell you!!! “Big Insurance” (as you have dubbed us) is not some invisible creature from outerspace that prints money then sits around counting it and laughing hysterically while your house gets washed away by a storm. We are honest, law abiding people. We are your next door neighbor, your preacher’s wife, maybe even your preacher. We are recent college graduates and grandpaws. We are mothers, sisters, brothers and cousins. We are JUST LIKE YOU. We work hard at our jobs every day JUST LIKE YOU and we take great pride in doing it to the best of our abilities. Some of us even live on the coast and MANY, MANY of us lost our homes to hurricane Katrina.
Not one of us deserves the abuse you dish out here. There were hundreds of thousands of claims adjusted and paid following Katrina (in Mississippi alone). If these few are the only ones you can find fault with, I’d say that “Big Insurance” did an AMAZING job! Way to go, team!!! Maybe a claim adjuster DID deny a claim or two that could have been paid. (I am not suggesting that mistakes WERE made. I have already said that I believe the contract should prevail, even if that means someones home doesn’t get repaired. ) But, Guess what, mistakes happen in ANY industry. Occasionally, someone misinterprets the law. Sometimes the law gets retroactively reinterpreted in court. Regardless, claims adjusters do not deliberately deny legitimate claims and insurance company exec do not lie awake at night trying to think up new and better ways to rip you off!!
Now, please, go back to your insurance industry bashing hobby. I won’t bother you with any more useless facts. Maybe, if you are lucky, you’ll all get through life without any of your loved ones ever falling so far from grace as to have to earn his or her living in this dastardly industry. (But, given the huge number of people employed by the dreaded insurance mafia, chances are, someday, someone you love will be “one of us”. ARGGGHHH! Then what??)
Farewell.
(SOP, as for judge Delaughter, his judicial record speaks for itself. He heard more cases than anyone else and his rulings are seldom overturned. That tells me he did a pretty good job of applying the law CORRECTLY, FAIRLY, & impartially. I will remind you that he only acknowledged having conversation with Ed Peters. He did not acknowledge discussing anything of substance (it matters) AND he DENIED having been influenced by Peters or anyone else. Further, the Bar has examined his decisions in that case and found that he correctly applied the law. So….Yeah. I still feel confident of that everyone, innocent or otherwise, would be treated fairly in his court.
lynda
January 9, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Actually I said none of what you claim Lynda, probably because you don’t listen. I have said 3 times now that the courts ruled the ACC did not apply to an all risk wind included homeowners policy in a Hurricane. That wasn’t unexpected though because it’s meaning was clearly defined when the langauge was drafted.
You may think that contract language is open to new intrepretations based upon nothing but mere whims and after the fact conjecture. I think it is funny you cite the flood exclusion as some sort of example of why insurance costs are high. Give me one example where a policyholder prevailed on with a flood claim on their wind policy. You can’t just like you failed to back up anything you said.
Still though your insight most valuable in several areas and I thank you for providing it. Cult de-programers in particular certainly are deriving the warm fuzzies associated with the continued job security.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FEho5cgynk]
sop
sop81_1
January 10, 2010 at 7:36 am
Hey Lynda check this out.
http://propertyinsurancecoveragelaw.com/2010/01/articles/insurance/slabbed-gets-it-and-so-do-i-what-about-all-the-other-more-brilliant-people-regarding-concepts-of-concurrent-causation/index.html
sop
sop81_1
January 10, 2010 at 8:38 am
There are many more examples of “wrong doing” than the “handful” of cases reported on SLABBED. Most of those were cases that closed before there was a SLABBED. Many of those were the some 30K+ cases “settled” [sic] in the sham MID Mediation – reported the result of former MID-assistant Commissioner Lee Harrell’s relationship with one or more members of the Southern District Federal Court. Follow the money, Harrell is now employed by insurance defense firm that represented State Farm in case filed by the Attorney General.
For the record, we have consistently recognized and expressed concern for our friends and neighbors who work in the insurance industry. They, too, are victims of Katrina.
nowdoucit
January 11, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Nowdy, Lynda has deluded herself into believing the anti concurrent clause somehow voids wind coverage in a Hurricane depsite us linking documents from those who were around when the clause was drafted including State Farm’s general counsel. Reasoning with someone so disconnected from reality is a total waste of time IMHO.
sop
sop81_1
January 11, 2010 at 2:09 pm
wow, this is a “doozy” – gotta jump in this one even though I have homework that must be done tonight in Psy. 400 (“Interviewing Techniques”).
Except from one of Lynda’s comments above (and I picked this one cuz it interests me and I don’t have the time – or the knowledge – to address EVERYTHING herein – but you guys are doing a GREAT JOB replying anyway):
“You can (and should) know how one company’s contract
compares to another before you buy. (For example, a new car
warranty. One has a 50,000 mile/36 month warranty. Another
has a 100,000 mile/5 year warranty. You DO take this
information into consideration when you buy, don’t you? If
NOT, should you be entitled to the 100/000 mile warranty just
because you didn’t know you had an option to buy a different
car with such a warranty? )
First, I.M.H.O., comparing car warranties (guaranteeing repairs to cars) to insurance policies (allegedly guaranteeing repairs and/or replacement to someone’s home, business, etc.) is like comparing powdered milk with whole milk = THERE IS NO COMPARISON!!!
Second, your average citizen does not buy a policy with – let’s say – STATE FARM – inherent with (and privy to) the knowledge of their recent claims practices during Katrina (i.e., declaring everything was a flood loss so that the U.S. Govt. paid the claim and then REIMBURSED STATE FARM) and then STATE FARM still DENIED THE AVERAGE CITIZEN’S CLAIM (which State Farm just profited from!!). NO, YOUR AVERAGE CITIZEN DOES NOT – AND, AGAIN, IS NOT PRIVY TO – THAT INFORMATION – THEY SHOULD BE, BUT THEY ARE NOT. There should be signs in offices that sell State Farm policies explaining this (and other) “claims practices” and then your “average citizen” can make an intelligent and informed decision b4 purchasing a policy.
Further:
“….For example, a new car warranty. One has a 50,000
mile/36 month warranty. Another has a 100,000 mile/5 year
warranty. You DO take this information into consideration
when you buy, don’t you?”
Sure, I take this into consideration just like I take the GEICO “gecko’s” promise on tv to pay claims and provide excellent service; and State Farm’s promise to treat its insured’s like a “good neighbor.” Please just because S/Farm sells a $100k contents limit in its Homeowner’s policy DOES NOT MEAN THEY’RE GOING TO PAY THEIR INSURED $100K IN CONTENTS – EVEN WHEN THE INSURED EXHAUSTIVELY PROVES THEY DESERVE IT!!!
So most people smart enough to buy insurance to cover the things important to them and their lives are just that – SMART – they’re also NAIVE and ASTONISHED when their INSURANCE COMPANY DOES NOT DO WHAT IT PROMISED (AND CONTRACTED) TO DO WHEN THEY PAID FOR THEIR POLICY/CONTRACT!!!
SHIRLEY HEFLIN
shirley heflin
January 13, 2010 at 9:02 pm
HI….TYPO IS MY SECOND PARAGRAPH ABOVE:
“…Except from one of Lynda’s comments above (and I picked this one cuz it ….”
SHOULD READ:
“…EXCERPT FROM ONE OF LYNDA’S COMMENTS ABOVE (AND I PICKED THIS ONE CUZ IT….”
SHIRLEY HEFLIN
shirley heflin
January 13, 2010 at 9:08 pm