Yourlawyer.com (Business Interruption Claims News)

Judge: Corps can be sued over flood

Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800

The Army Corps of Engineers can't assert immunity in a lawsuit over the catastrophic flooding following Hurricane Katrina, because of the plaintiffs' claim that flooding stemmed from the agency's negligence in fixing defects in the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet navigation project that it had known of for years, a New Orleans federal court judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval's ruling cleared the way for WDSU-TV anchorman Norman Robinson, a Lower 9th Ward couple and two St. Bernard Parish residents to press for trial of a lawsuit blaming Army Corps of Engineers negligence for the flooding that destroyed their homes in Hurricane Katrina.

The plaintiffs' legal team said the case could go to trial by early next year, after Duval rejected corps arguments that the case should be tossed out because federal law makes the agency immune from lawsuits over its flood control projects and policy decisions.

Duval said the suit brought by Robinson and his fellow plaintiffs targets not a flood control project but what it calls the corps' negligent failure to fix defects in a navigation project it built years ago, the 70-plus-mile-long Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet shipping channel.

That inaction, the suit claims, caused destruction of more than 100 square miles of wetlands that once protected the area from storms and turned the channel into a superhighway that funneled Katrina's levee-bursting tidal surges into their homes.

"This is a landmark victory for Katrina victims in New Orleans and St. Bernard Parish," said one of the plantiffs' lawyers, who heads the team of lawyers from 20 firms around the nation that filed the case last spring.

"In a courthouse in New Orleans, because of Katrina, a judge has stood up and said the (U.S.) Constitution means what it says the government can't take your property without just compensation," the attorney said.

Individuals hoping to share in whatever compensation the corps may be ordered to pay must, by Aug. 31, send the corps what's called a Form 95 signaling their intent to sue the agency.

One of the plaintiffs'attorney representative on a committee helping plan for trial of all Katrina-related case on Duval's docket, said the MR-GO case ruling will be useful for court challenges to more than 100 corps-built levees around the nation that a recent study deemed unsafe.

But in the near term, a plantiffs' attorney said, Friday's ruling in the MR-GO case could buttress his plans for a new federal lawsuit aimed at holding the corps responsible for the 17th Street Canal floodwall break that left 80 percent of New Orleans flooded after Katrina.

One of the plantiffs' attorneys said the suit will claim that the corps gave the city Sewerage & Water Board a permit to dredge the 17th Street canal, work that allowed water to undermine soil beneath the floodwall, ultimately causing the wall to break.

"We believe (the canal dredging) was a navigation project and not a flood control project," said a plaintiffs' attorney.

Judge OKs Katrina flood suit vs. Corps

Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Residents whose homes were flooded during Hurricane Katrina can sue the Army Corps of Engineers over claims the agency ignored warnings about defects in a nearby navigation channel, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The ruling, one of the first significant decisions in a set of cases over what caused the flooding, may force the Corps to hand over documents about the management of the channel.

"Now we will have an opportunity to see what goes on behind closed doors," said a trial lawyer for the plaintiffs.

Eugene Pawlik, a Corps spokesman in Washington, said the agency's lawyers are reviewing the ruling but did not have any immediate comment.

The Corps and federal government had argued they were immune to legal challenges because decisions about the waterway were based in policy.

But U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval said there is no way to know that at this point, and said plaintiffs should get a hearing for their allegations.

At issue is a 76-mile shipping channel built in the early 1960s as a shortcut to New Orleans. For years, environmentalists and others have criticized the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet because it has eroded enormous tracts of wetlands and increased the threat of flooding.

During Katrina, storm surge traveled up the channel and overwhelmed levees protecting St. Bernard Parish and eastern New Orleans, according to scientists. The Corps of Engineers has acknowledged that the channel contributed to the region's flooding and the agency wants to guard against future flooding by building flood gates.

State Farm Loses Benchmark Katrina Case

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:00:00 -0800

In a ruling that may have ramifications on hundreds of other lawsuits, a federal judge in Mississippi declared that State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. is liable for damage to a couple’s Biloxi home following Hurricane Katrina. While the insurance company is responsible for paying $223,292 in damages to the home, the key part of the ruling was the award by a jury of $2.5 million in punitive damages.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. may be troubling news for State Farm and other insurers who are claiming that they are not responsible for damage caused by flooding. In the case of Norman and Genevieve Broussard, State Farm had contended that they were not responsible for the damages because they were caused by water. However, the judge sided with the Broussards, who claimed that the damage was mostly due to excessive winds. Senter left the decision about punitive damages to a jury, and the jury decided to award punitive damages because State Farm had initially (and illegally) denied the Broussards’ insurance claim.

Senter’s ruling put the burden of proof on State Farm to show that water was the primary cause of the damage. In Senter’s mind, the company failed to establish that fact and therefore is liable for the damages. With hundreds of Katrina-related lawsuits still pending, the outcome of this case may eventually cost insurance companies billions of dollars in payout.

As reported earlier this week, State Farm is also currently negotiating a settlement of more than 600 Katrina lawsuits in the state of Mississippi, to the tune of $80 million or more. Today’s ruling may give more leverage to the plaintiffs in negotiations.

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP Retained by Hundreds of Hurricane Katrina Victims Whose Insurance Claims Have Been Denied

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP (www.yourlawyer.com) announced that it has been retained by hundreds of clients in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi whose insurance claims related to damage caused by Hurricane Katrina were denied. Under state and federal laws, insurance companies are required to resolve claims with their insureds in good faith and with fair dealing. Unfortunately, thousands of insurance policyholders are unable to put their lives back together because of widespread improper damage claim denials. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is assisting policyholders whose property insurance claims have been denied, or who have not yet filed a claim but who plan to in the future. The firm is providing legal representation to these policyholders in order to quickly obtain the compensation their insurance coverage provides.

If your Katrina-related insurance claim was denied, or if you plan to file a claim, you can request a free case evaluation by visiting http://www.katrinaclaimdenial.com or http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Katrina_Insurance_Claims . Case evaluations are also available by calling Parker Waichman Alonso LLP at 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).

Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and a majority of other states, have laws governing how insurance companies must deal with claimants. In fact, Louisiana makes it mandatory for insurers to make a written offer to resolve a property damage claim within 30 days after receipt of a "satisfactory proof of loss" for the claim. If the insurance company fails to do this, the company may be liable for penalties of up to 25% on the amount due. Other states have similar laws punishing insurance companies that unfairly deny or delay payment on valid claims.

"Insurance companies often use their own narrow interpretations of policy language to deny legitimate claims from individual policyholders," said Jerrold Parker, founding partner of Parker Waichman Alonso LLP. "Unfortunately, the insurance industry has been successful in convincing many claimants that their damage is not covered by their insurance policy. Policyholders should not rely on the conclusions of their insurance company without having their claim and insurance policy thoroughly reviewed by an attorney. Insurance companies tend to treat claimants more fairly when they are being represented by an attorney."

About Parker Waichman Alonso LLP

Parker Waichman Alonso LLP is a leading consumer fraud, products liability and personal injury law firm that represents plaintiffs nationwide. Parker Waichman Alonso LLP has assisted thousands of clients in receiving fair compensation for denied insurance claims, securities fraud, and injuries resulting from defective medical devices and medications. In addition to representing victims of bad faith insurance denials, Parker & Waichman, LLP represents thousands of individuals injured by Guidant Defibrillators, Drug Coated Coronary Stents, Vioxx, Fosamax, Ketek, ReNu with MoistureLoc, Ortho Evra and many other defective drugs and medical products. For more information on Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, please visit: www.yourlawyer.com or call (800) LAW-INFO.

CONTACT: Parker Waichman Alonso LLP
          David Krangle, ESQ.
          (800) LAW-INFO
          (800) 529-4636
          info@yourlawyer.com
          www.yourlawyer.com

Business Interruption Claims Insurance Lawyer

Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:00:00 -0800

Business Interruption Claims

Businesses purchase business interruption insurance in case damage from a disaster makes conducting business as usual impossible. When disaster strikes, the survival of many businesses are contingent on receiving timely payments from their business interruption insurer. Unfortunately, insurance companies often deny business interruption insurance claims, forcing policyholders to pursue a long and costly appeals process.

Businesses in the Gulf Coast states have taken an economic blow as a result of the hurricanes in the region in 2005. The damage in these states has also adversely affected businesses in other parts of the country that rely on materials and goods from suppliers in the Gulf Coast. Many local businesses and out-of-state businesses purchased business interruption insurance but have found that getting their claims paid is difficult.

Because a policyholder’s ability to recover business-interruption losses largely hinges on having coverage for the peril that caused the loss, one early dispute could center on whether the water that inundated New Orleans after two levees failed after Hurricane Katrina is a flood as defined in policy language. This means that if you purchased business interruption insurance but did not purchase flood insurance, it is likely that your claim would be denied.

Even policyholders that have both wind and flood coverage are facing problems recovering their business-interruption losses because of the evacuation of New Orleans for what likely will be months. An exclusion in many business-interruption policies bars coverage when a policyholder loses its market. Insurers will deny business-interruption claims because New Orleans’ population is largely gone indefinitely.

If your business was affected by the damage in the Gulf Coast region and your business interruption claim was denied, please fill out the form to the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified insurance attorney.