Follow us!

    Re: Three Years Later, Industry Puts Toxic Mold into Perspec

    Posted by dd on 4/06/04

    You leave out the biggest class of 'victims', the renters. They
    are often unaware of any problems and landlords and property
    managers simply paint over evidence; the paint visually and
    olofactorily obscures the presence of mold.
    I have said time and again that some criminal penalties must be
    assessed for failure to maintain, particularly when awareness of
    the problem results in a 'makeover' rather than remediation of the
    underlying problem.

    It is Easter, so go ahead and crucify me. Mary, give it your best

    On 4/01/04, johncodie wrote:
    > On 3/31/04, Jack wrote:
    >> I don't work for for Farmers and am no longer in the busines
    >> so I could give a s*#t about Farmers.
    > This sounds like you saw the light of day. When did you decide
    > that being a representaive of the insurance industy was just not
    > worth the effort. I have read alot about how the guys that stay
    > on the road months out of a year can't depend upon a livable
    > income from the insurance industry paying a decent wage for the
    > knowledge and front line personnel skills these guys have to
    > develope.
    > In my opinion Farmers won this away what they did
    > in the Ballard case is pocket change for this company and and
    > realistically only a fraction of all the fraudulent mold claims
    > they paid out.
    > So Winning the case in your opinon is having a jury find evidence
    > to warrent a 32 million dollar judgement, the company admits bad
    > faith, and advertise they are not found guilty of fraud? If
    > Farmer's bread and butter is trust with the insurer's of the
    > World to put their money with them rather than someone else; it
    > sounds like they lost a major Public Release opportunity. What
    > other commodity does the insurance industry provide besides a
    > promise to make whole in case of an unlikeyly event.
    > In my opinion both parties are at fault... (Contributary
    > Negligence ?)
    > incompetence vs. money train...
    > Ms Ballard is a very competent Public Relations person. I doubt
    > that she was ever not heard, or misunderstood.
    > Now concerning money train... did you expect Ms Ballard to foot
    > all the repairs and then wait until Hell froze over for Farmers
    > to send her a check for all her incompetence
    > If Farmers hired the people that were to come find the problems
    > with the house are they not competent to relove the problem
    > before it becomes a 32 million dollar reduced, not counting the
    > bad public opinon? Either side could have called anyone up to
    > the $300 dollar an hour toxicologists.
    > Good for you maintaining your home...
    > In my industry people die if leaks are not found and fixed, and
    > the industry from Texas your refer to, Houston, Corpus Christie
    > sent over their best three times, after the industry had sent
    > even more. We have video of them smelling contents and claiming
    > no mold, and upon removal and destruction we found the boxes
    > never opened and contents like redwing boots and leather shoes
    > growing together. For those boxes of contents no compensation
    > was provided in the estimates, and they had been made available
    > for inspection for seven years.
    > you would be suprised how many Americans do not and then blame
    > someone else for their problems.
    > After a hurricane delunged my home and all the contents saturated
    > with moisture contents up to 100&37;, i got critisized for
    > up the interior walls and letting the A/C dry the interior. The
    > adjuster said it would be fine since it was not flood water, just
    > let it dry. It just about boiled down to blaming me for the
    > hurricane and not going to the bank to borrow a quarter of a
    > million dollars on top of existing notes to finance all the
    > repairs, on top of all the other labor, and moving we had paid
    > out of pocket. In their opinion my knowledge over their
    > adjuster's knowledge made me negligent.
    > It a shame there isn't a bad faith clause in the policy for a
    > homeowner not taking care of their home.
    > There is a clause there if ever an adjuster would take the time
    > to sit down with an attorny and look at the words. The insurance
    > company always retains the rights to come and examine the home
    > for potential problems. We had ours checked four years before
    > the storm. The company wanted to see the dead bolts, the fire
    > etinquishers and the overall condition of the home. They were
    > satisfied and just kept taking the checks every year.
    > I wish you could have been in my shoes when I handled claims in
    >> the houston area a couple of years ago in the height of this
    >> hysteria. Contractors, public adjusters, remediators and just
    >> plain con-men new exactly how to play the game.
    > I was talking with the paralegal downtown Houston at that time
    > when Houston was flooded; they were just starting to deal with
    > the miscommunications as I had been dealing with it for the past
    > four years. In my opinion the insurance industry was doing
    > everything they could to justify the rate increases, while they
    > were greezing the skids of the judicial sides to say no problem
    > to mold, while there was no scientific support. The paralegal
    > also found mold in her closets, having an inflicted child at
    > home; and the law firms attorney discovered he had Cancer. I
    > know how the gam is played, we prepare for it every day. The
    > game is called all out war. There is nothing Civil about it and
    > no need to lessen the blows.
    > Like I said the problem hasn't gone away. As long as newer homes
    > are "moldy" and the realtors are divided, and the contractors
    > unsure how they got that way; there is a huge liability brewing.
    > I am sure if Farmers would have been on the up put the competent
    > people on the problem people in Texas would be smiling rather
    > facing off over the battle lines. Insurance is supposed to be a
    > betterment of Socity and its policy held to a higher standard
    > than a standard Contract. Is should not be an instrument to
    > divide and cause Civil disobidence.
    > jc

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.

The Counsel.Net ChatBoardsm. All Rights Reserved.