On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:30:46 -0400, Tim Keating
wrote:

On 20 Oct 2004 11:46:38 -0700, (sandy) wrote:

We finally had the insurance adjuster over to look over our limited
hurricane damage. One of our problems was that water had come in
through the walls (soaking the carpet, damaging furniture, etc.)
during the hurricane. The adjuster said it was "hydrostatic" damages
that were not covered by our insurance. I got the impression that he

I take it that the insurance company adjuster is claiming that this
was ground water seepage? Did the outside water level approach the
foundation ?

If the answer is yes.. then the damages are covered by flood
insurance. see http://www.fema.gov/txt/nfip/2004adjmanual.txt

P.S. I'm assuming this is in Florida..


Otherwise.. Watch for resolution of this case..
http://www.citizensfla.com/bnc_meet/...l%20Report.pdf
"Carl J. Ferro & Italia, Inc. et al. v. Florida Windstorm Underwriting
Association"... A class action currently pending in Broward County
Circuit Court.

"The issues in this case are similar to those raised in the matter
styled Anil Gajwani and Suresh Gajwani v. Lexington Insurance Company
and Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association, Miami-Dade County
Circuit Court. The Gajwanis suffered damage to their residences as a
result of Hurricane Irene. FWUA denied the Gajwani’s claims on the
grounds that the damage was caused by wind-driven rain and, therefore,
excluded under the policy. Lexington, the homeowner’s carrier, also
denied coverage, relying on a windstorm exclusion endorsement in its
policy."

"The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of the
Gajwanis and against FWUA, finding, inter alia, that the wind driven
rain exclusion violated public policy because the FWUA was created to
provide people with windstorm coverage and this exclusion eliminated
the coverage people were supposed to receive. In granting the summary
judgment, the trial court also found that FWUA tacitly admitted there
was coverage by agreeing to an appraisal, and because in 2000, FWUA
revised its policy to eliminate the wind driven rain exclusion."

The Appeal of the Gajwanis case is likely to be decided one way or
another in the next year.
http://199.242.69.70/pls/ds/ds_docke...&psSearchType=

P.S. The Insurance adjuster was most likely full of it..
(About it not being covered..)

said water was seeping in between our slab and the cbs walls because
of air pressure from the hurricane. It only happened in 2 walls our
house and we'd like to do whatever we have to do so that it doesn't

One should expect that wind driven rain damage is to be expected in
a hurricane.

Now.. the decision for you.. were your losses greater than your wind
storm deductible? If yes.. file an appeal and/or ask for mediation.

Or wait a bit longer.. document, mediate/fix your damages, and tally
up your losses.

You might mention "Anil Gajwani and Suresh Gajwani v. Lexington
Insurance Company and Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association" in
your claim. If your insurance company fails to act in good faith,
that increases the insurance companies liability well beyond the
actual damages. (And is worthy of a lawyers attention).

Note: Any company who's policy is supposed to supplant a FWUA
policy must have similar terms.


A followup on my previous post..

http://www.fldfs.com/companies/bulletins/00%2D001.htm

BULLETIN 00-001
February 1, 2000

Florida Department of Insurance
Bill Nelson
Treasurer, Insurance Commissioner and Fire Marshal

All Property and Casualty Insurers

Wind Exclusion Endorsements

The Department of Insurance has learned that some insurers are
interpreting their wind exclusion endorsements to exclude coverage for
structural damage when such damage is caused by rain that enters a
structure through an opening not created directly or indirectly by
wind. We have found some instances where these types of claims have
been denied, in contravention of the wind exclusion endorsement.

While individual policy language would have to be considered in
context, the Department's approval of wind exclusion endorsements has
been predicated on the premise that the only coverage that can
properly be excluded under the endorsement is that which is provided
by the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association.

The misapplication of the wind exclusion endorsement and denial of
claims for structural damage caused by rain that enters a structure
through an opening not created directly or indirectly by wind, appears
to present an unfair trade practice, violative of Part IX of Chapter
626 of the Insurance Code, subjecting insurers to administrative fines
and other appropriate administrative action.