Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Unbelievable Corruption and Fauxonomics in US Storm Cleanup

  1. #1

    Default Unbelievable Corruption and Fauxonomics in US Storm Cleanup

    1) NY governor declares that flood insurance deductibles will be waived for everyone in NY state. This despite those insurance policies being private contracts. Many of the homes covered are in beach towns and the deductible is 5% of the value of said (often pricey) homes. This move is of dubious legality, but he's basically threatening to use the power of the state to void a key actuarial allowance that keeps insurance policies affordable.

    2) Some utilities in the south sent workers up to NJ to help. A local electricians union in NJ sent one of the utilities paperwork claiming these workers had to have a union affiliation to work in NJ. The workers returned to their staging area in Virginia. Predictably, the union is denying this.

    Holy shitsnacks, what is wrong with these people.

    1) http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A114H20121102

    Spoiler:
    Can Cuomo interfere in storm insurance contracts?

    By Alison Frankel

    (Reuters) - On Wednesday night, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo made a startling announcement: Homeowners "will not have to pay" so-called hurricane deductibles when they file insurance claims for damages caused by Sandy. In a follow-up news release Thursday morning, after other governors joined Cuomo in the measure, Cuomo's Department of Financial Services, which regulates insurance companies, said that it had "informed the insurance industry that hurricane deductibles should not be triggered for this storm."

    Can Cuomo and his DFS chief, Benjamin Lawsky, do that? Are state governors empowered to determine, by executive fiat, what constitutes a hurricane? The answer to that question, according to three insurance lawyers, is no -- and yes.

    Here's why. The insurance industry is state-regulated. In New York, insurance policy language on hurricane provisions -- which typically impose deductibles of between one and five percent of a home's value for damages caused by hurricanes -- must be approved by the Department of Financial Services, according to Marshall Gilinsky of Anderson Kill & Olick, who represents policyholders in disputes with insurers. So, in a way, state insurance regulators have already decided what constitutes a hurricane, for the purposes of insurance coverage, by regulating the provisions that define hurricanes.

    That's not as absolute a definition as you might think, though. Gilinsky and Texas policyholder lawyer Steve Mostyn of the Mostyn Law Firm pointed out that there's often considerable uncertainty in meteorological parameters included in hurricane deduction provisions. One critical factor, for instance, is wind speed, which is how the weather service distinguishes hurricanes from less severe storms. (Other factors are the National Weather Service's categorization of the storm and the time lapse between its landfall and the damage it caused.) But wind speed varies depending on where, when and how it's measured. It's conceivable that homeowners affected by Sandy could point to one measurement of wind speed that wouldn't trigger the hurricane deductible and insurers could point to another wind speed measurement that would require the higher deductible.

    With his pre-emptive announcement Wednesday, Gilinsky said, Cuomo sent a warning message to insurers: The state is watching you. "He's saying that the facts are such that higher hurricane deductibles are not warranted," Gilinsky said. "That's consistent with his role as a consumer advocate and regulator."

    But for all the regulatory leverage Cuomo and DFS chief Lawsky enjoy, they do not have the final say on whether Sandy was a hurricane for the purposes of insurance deductibles. Insurance policies are private contracts between property owners and insurers. Even the state governor isn't empowered to interfere with those contracts unless a court approves it. "Ultimately," said one insurance lawyer, "this is something a court will decide, not Governor Cuomo or Mr. Lawsky."

    That said, the governor's pronouncement will probably influence any court called upon to decided whether Sandy was a hurricane when it hit New York. "Regulators can't decide what the contract says, but a court would take that into consideration," said Mostyn, who represented homeowners in Galveston, Texas, in litigation stemming from 2008's Hurricane Ike. "The governor's view isn't controlling but it weighs heavy."

    If an insurer opts to defy the governor and his insurance chief, it will face not only heightened regulatory scrutiny but also public relations costs, said policyholder lawyer Gilinsky. These are companies that run television commercials promising to stand by their customers, he said. Imposing a hurricane deductible in the face of Cuomo's pronouncement, he said, "tells you you're not in good hands, you don't have a piece of the rock, whatever."

    Mostyn predicted that the real insurance fight will be over whether wind or water caused the catastrophic destruction along the Jersey Shore. Hurricanes Katrina and Ike spawned years of litigation between insurers, who asserted damages were the result of flooding and thus not covered, and homeowners who said insurers were liable for havoc wreaked by high winds. After Ike, Mostyn obtained more than $350 million from just one Texas insurer that originally denied claims by property owners in Galveston. "I looked at pictures of the Jersey coast," Mostyn said. "They looked exactly like Galveston."



    2) http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...needed_un.html

    Spoiler:

    Alabama utility crew needed union affiliation to work in N.J., official says

    By Richard Khavkine/The Star-Ledger
    on November 02, 2012 at 1:04 PM, updated November 02, 2012 at 3:17 PM

    A 6-man crew dispatched from a municipal utility in Decatur, Ala., to help restore power in Seaside Heights returned home after the company was sent paperwork implying that the crew needed union affiliation before going to work in the Ocean County town, the utility’s general manager, Ray Hardin, said this morning.

    The crew, which was at a staging area in Virginia as the company awaited “clarification,” eventually returned to Alabama on Thursday after getting word that Seaside Heights had received the help it sought, Hardin said in a statement.

    Hardin said the Decatur Utilities received documents from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers “that implied a requirement of our employees to agree to union affiliation while working in the New York and New Jersey areas.”

    Hardin and a company representative did not respond to a request for details about the documentation, including which IBEW local might have sent it.

    Jim Spellane, chief spokesman for the IBEW’s national office in Washington, said he did not know from where the paperwork might have come. "We didn't send it to them," he said.

    Spellane said national union officials were looking into the matter.

    Although Hardin says that “at no time were our crews ‘turned away' ” from the Seaside Heights utility, “it was and remains our understanding that agreeing to those requirements was a condition of being allowed to work in those areas.”

    Seaside Heights' municipal electric utility could not be reached for comment this morning, and it is unclear which IBEW local represents those workers. A representative in the union's district office, in Philadelphia, reserved comment until later in the day.

    Major utility companies in New Jersey, however, said that they are welcoming any and all out-of-state crews.

    "We take crews as they become available,” said Ron Morano, a spokesman for Jersey Central Power & Light. “Everyone understands this is an all-hands-on-deck event.”

    Morano said crews from throughout the nation were now working in JCP&L’s service area, including from California, Idaho, Kentucky, Florida, Michigan and North Carolina.

    He did suggest that municipal companies might have issues working side-by-side with non-unionized contractors.

    A Public Service Electric & Gas spokeswoman also said the extent of damage from Monday’s superstorm called for as much manpower as could get here.

    “We have not turned any mutual-aid crews away,” Deann Muzikar said. “We’re taking any help we can possibly get.”

    As of Wednesday, about 1,050 out-of-state contractors were working in PSE&G’s service area, she said, including from utility companies in Canada, Texas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Pennsylvania and other states.

    “Every day we’re getting more and more,” Muzicar said.

    One IBEW local president, Chip Gerrity, who is also business manager of Hightstown-based Local 94, also said it would be foolish to favor one set of workers over another after the devastation to the electric infrastructure.

    “I want union guys first, obviously,” Gerrity said. “But with an event like this you want everybody you can get.”

    Two other Alabama utilities were initially mentioned by a Huntsville (Ala.) television station in a story that said non-union crews had been turned aside.

    One of those, Trinity, Ala.-based Joe Wheeler, was never in New Jersey and is unionized, its CEO, George Kitchens, said this morning.

    Eight Wheeler workers were instead dispatched to Maryland before the storm hit, and is already back home, a company spokeswoman, Mandi Phillips, said.

    “We are headed back home,” she said. “We were never turned away.”

    Bill Yell, communications manager for Huntsville Utilities, said he was not aware that a union issue had prevented three of that company’s crews from working in New Jersey.

    Huntsville originally sent two 3-man bucket crews and one 3-man pole-setting crew to Seaside Heights, but that all nine had since been dispatched to Long Island, Yell said.

    “The reason we’re not working with the New Jersey system is that they had all the crews they could handle,” he said.

    The fact that those crews are not unionized did not have any effect, he said.

    “They didn’t have any problems with us,” he said.[/quote]

  2. #2
    I hope this goes to court so that we can decide once and for all what a "hurricane" is.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  3. #3
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    A couple of points:

    1) - Seems like a 'standard' populist announcement to me. And from the article it's always an issue that ends up in litigation.
    - If it's a 5% difference and based on not-too-clear specifications (apparently), how is that exactly making it 'affordable'? 5% increase or decrease isn't that much is it? Isn't that a bit of a hyperbole?

    2) You seem fairly certain of the facts, even if the guys who claim it aren't commenting, nobody else seems to confirm it, and two other reported companies replied that they did not have issues. You sure that it isn't one anti union guy bitching? And even he says it was 'implied', that no one was actually sent back by the unions, just that they did not get a reply. And the reply now seems to be that it isn't an issue according to the unions themselves.

    Then again, US unions are crazy enough taht it could have actually happened, even if it's just a local one. But this whole story seems rather unconfirmed, so far.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  4. #4
    Dread's postings are starting to become as jaded and ignorant of actual facts as kat's
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #5
    Will go to court - its absurd to think that the Gov. can alter contracts at a whim.

    On the off chance the twit wins in court (crazier things have happened in the US legal system) - expect EVERYONE's insurance rates in ANY potential storm prone area to skyrocket.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    its absurd to think that the Gov. can alter contracts at a whim.
    That's not whats happening here. The Gov is saying that the storm wasn't a hurricane when it made landfall and/or caused the damage, therefore the deductible clause won't be activated.

    Florida goes through the same shit everytime a storm lands. The shell companies that don't collapse will do all they can to claim that the damage was the result of whatever event (hurricane vs TS, water vs wind) will mean they pay out the least.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 11-03-2012 at 01:43 AM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  7. #7
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Will go to court - its absurd to think that the Gov. can alter contracts at a whim.

    On the off chance the twit wins in court (crazier things have happened in the US legal system) - expect EVERYONE's insurance rates in ANY potential storm prone area to skyrocket.
    The way I read it, he doesn't alter the contract but pressures the insurance company not to invoke the clause. Apparently the wording of the clause is vague enough that if they do invoke, it will likely result in a long legal battle. Either way, it should be left for the courts.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    its absurd to think that the Gov. can alter contracts at a whim.
    You're right, it is absurd to think that. I hope, for the sake of sanity, that NY has a law in place that prevents insurance companies from invoking their hurricane deductible clauses for storms that get downgraded
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  9. #9
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    That wouldn't be needed, the clause is in the contract, no? That clause should describe what constitutes a hurricane, not a seperate law, I'd think.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You're right, it is absurd to think that. I hope, for the sake of sanity, that NY has a law in place that prevents insurance companies from invoking their hurricane deductible clauses for storms that get downgraded
    You mean that NY has a law in place that allows the government to invalidate private contracts? Remind me why those contracts exist in the first place.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  11. #11
    Sounds more like unconfirmed faux news so far.

  12. #12
    http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/103...ne-Deductibles Going to claim the governor doesn't know what the governor's position is?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  13. #13
    If you meant me, my comment was a reply to Dread claiming corruption and fauxonomics. There's nothing false in Cuomo's statement. NOAA and NWS will probably confirm that it wasn't hurricane strength.

    “We have informed the insurance industry that hurricane deductibles are not triggered because Sandy did not have sustained hurricane-force winds when it made land in New York.
    Homeowners are also reminded that flood damage is only covered by flood insurance, which is a federal program administered by FEMA. Homeowners who have flood insurance and have flood damage should make claims through that insurance.
    That means homeowners are still required to pay normal deductibles for wind/storm damage claims. It's giving people a heads up to keep careful records, in advance of insurers denying claims indirectly related to Hurricane Sandy.


    Since there's only one article about union vs municipal utility crews, it needs corroboration to prove corruption or collusion. Some contracts are automatically changed (or temporarily rescinded) during National Disasters, when FEMA or National Guard steps in. I'm not sure of the details, are you?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    A couple of points:

    1) - Seems like a 'standard' populist announcement to me. And from the article it's always an issue that ends up in litigation.
    - If it's a 5% difference and based on not-too-clear specifications (apparently), how is that exactly making it 'affordable'? 5% increase or decrease isn't that much is it? Isn't that a bit of a hyperbole?
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    The way I read it, he doesn't alter the contract but pressures the insurance company not to invoke the clause. Apparently the wording of the clause is vague enough that if they do invoke, it will likely result in a long legal battle. Either way, it should be left for the courts.
    I agree, and I think your reading is correct.

    FYI the 5% deductible on many of these policies means that, if a hurricane hits, the homeowner will pay the first 5% of the insured value of the home before the insurance company starts paying.

    So, if your beach home (and many of these are beach homes) is worth $1,000,000 according to your insurance policy, you will be responsible for the first $50,000 of repair costs. After that, the insurance company starts paying.

    Where it gets tricky is in the actual policies people buy. EG, if the governor is saying the state will fight any insurance company who declares this a hurricane...well, many people with massive wind damage will be hard-pressed to get any money under the hurricane policies they paid extra for. And their main insurance may not cover wind damage at all under certain circumstances.

    Basically, it's a government-induced clusterfuck for what's already going to be a a really messy situation. I'm fine with government regulators watching-over the insurance companies to make sure they don't low-ball payouts. But I think this is absurd.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    You're right, it is absurd to think that. I hope, for the sake of sanity, that NY has a law in place that prevents insurance companies from invoking their hurricane deductible clauses for storms that get downgraded
    If they aren't able to invoke their hurricane clauses, it could leave substantial amounts of damage that's virtually uncovered by the insurance company. That's the point of hurricane clauses and other various add-ons to insurance policies.

    And the deductible is meant to offset the actuarial risk of having to replace an entire home after a major storm. The deductible, in turn, makes these policies more affordable. Though most people don't understand how deductibles work.

    Also, the hurricane insurance (and associated deductible clauses) can usually apply if an area was put under a hurricane alert/watch and that storm later damage the home.

    Either way, as Flixy said, this will probably get litigated for a while.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    If they aren't able to invoke their hurricane clauses, it could leave substantial amounts of damage that's virtually uncovered by the insurance company.
    Show me any insurance policy that only covers hurricane rated wind damage
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  16. #16
    Cuomo is probably trying to reduce litigation by alerting the Insurers not to pull another Katrina stunt. Remember that -- when claims were denied for just about everything -- including a tree falling on a house -- by filing it under Flood or Hurricane?

  17. #17
    Hah, yeah right. He just wants to look like a magician by making insurance seem cheaper than it is.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •