Nationwide Won't Pay a Dime if Wind Destroys 95% of Home





The interactive transcript could not be loaded.



Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jul 1, 2009

Watch Nationwide Insurance attorney Christopher Landau tell the Mississippi Supreme Court that Nationwide Insurance "wouldn't pay a dime" on the wind portion of a homeowners policy if wind destroyed 95% of a home and flooding came later and destroyed the remaining 5%.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, insurance companies shifted wind damage claims to the National Flood Insurance Program that should have been covered by their own homeowners policies.

On June 9, 2009, the Mississippi Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the interpretation of the industrys anti-concurrent causation (ACC) clauses, which are buried deep inside homeowners insurance policies.

In response to questioning, Landau answered that even if a house were 95 percent destroyed by winds before any flooding, Nationwide wouldnt pay a dime to the policyholder if the flooding was severe enough to have destroyed the house anyway.

For more information on the solution to this homeowner insurance crisis impacting Coastal Americans from Texas through New York, see Rep. Gene Taylor's insurance reform website at taylor.house.gov. The solution is to have one policy to cover both wind and flood, and Rep. Taylor has proposed the Multiple Peril Insurance Act to do just that.



When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next

to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...