Hurricanes Gustav and Ike claims

If you or someone you know continues to wrestle with insurance claims from Hurricanes Ike or Gustav, now is the time to consider hiring an attorney. When handling these claims, the one common factor that can prove beneficial or detrimental to an insurance claim is how the claim develops during the pre-litigation claim process.

For example, if you have an ongoing flood claim, have you timely submitted your proof of loss with your flood insurer? If not, you may lose the right to sue on your supplemental claim. Federal law concretely states that a litigant who fails to timely file a proof of loss loses their right to collect on a supplemental claim.

Another example is developing a claim for business interruption and failing to recreate or maintain your financial records to prove your claim for business interruption. After Hurricane Katrina, many people fled and lost contact with companies that handle their accounting and accounts receivables, the recovery of data from these companies will be crucial during litigation. We have found that the earlier the attempts to find these companies or their owners, the more success we had with finding the people or companies.

Another example is ensuring that any physical evidence that shows damage from the storm is preserved. The best way to show this damage is through photographs, but sometimes photographs accidentally send the wrong message. In one case a tree fell on a house causing severe roof damage and subsequent interior rain-water damage. The problem with the case was that we only had a few pictures of the branches that fell on the house after they had been cut off of the house. What would have been a better display of the damage would have been exterior and interior pictures of the tree on the house that show the hole created by the fallen tree.

These are just a few brief examples of why an attorney should be retained on an insurance claim for damage to a home or business after Hurricanes Ike and Gustav. If you continue to wrestle with your insurance company, please call the Brandner Law Firm for a free consultation. Or, e-mail me at Michael@BrandnerLawFirm.com.

Why an insurance companies' independent medical examination is not very "independent".

Recently, the New York Times discussed ways insurance companies abuse the use of independent medical examinations that insurance companies require claimants to take. The jest of the article is that these independent medical examinations provide an insurance company with the ability to improperly delay or deny payment on a claim. Here is the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/nyregion/01comp.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

My house flooded, what do I do now?

Over the last few weeks, many homes have been overwhelmed with floodwaters due to rising rivers. As many of us in south Louisiana learned after Hurricane Katrina, how a homeowner handles a flood claim from the inception of the claim may hurt or help the claim on the homeowner's flood insurance policy. The flood insurance policy is underwritten by the federal government and operated through the National Flood Insurance Program. And, importantly, it is subject only to federal law.

Under federal law, the homeowner must follow all procedures described in the policy of flood insurance. Failure to follow the policy's procedures may result in a dismissal of your flood claim. For example, the homeowner must submit a formal proof of loss under the flood policy. If a formal proof of loss is not filed, then the flood insurer may deny the claim or, if in litigation, may move to dismiss your flood claim in a summary judgment. Therefore, the first action you should take after filing your initial claim is to request a copy of your flood insurance policy from your insurance agent. Then, make sure you follow the procedure described therein.

As always, if you have any questions regarding your flood insurance policy, you should contact an attorney with knowlege and experience in handling these flood claims.

Placing profits over the protection of the insured.

A recent article in a magazine devoted to the insurance industry recommends that insurance companies hire trial lawyers at the beginning of a claim made by a policyholder (also known as the "insured") or a third party. The purpose behind this recommendation is to better develop reasons for denying an insurance claim. Therefore, this magazine recommends that instead of rightfully paying an insurance claim - i.e. protecting the policyholder or third party, the insurance company should hire lawyers or other professionals to determine the best ways to deny coverage of the claim, which would result in protecting the insurance companies' profits. This recommended practice completely contradicts the purpose behind purchasing insurance - to protect the customer or insured when disaster strikes.

Unfortunately, this practice is becomming increasingly more visible. Over the last few months I have noticed that insurance companies are either denying claims for absurd reasons or delaying payment of insurance proceeds for reasons that are not related to the insurance claim. To combat these practices, claimants that hire attorneys in the beginning of a claim become better prepared when developing their claims. An attorney who is familiar with these insurance tactics will not only recognize them and prevent them from damaging your claim, but an attorney will also use them to develope a bad-faith claim against the insurance company who engages in such practices. Bad-faith claims are the only way to penalize insurance companies for the aformentioned tactics. And, only when the penalties start to cut into the insurance companies' bottom line will the insurance companies cease these bad-faith practices.