Katrina Levee Cases

David Rossmiller has it right.  Eighty-five pages on whether the word flood is ambiguous is over the top. The cases even have their own knick name (The Canal Cases) and their own web site.

I am not a judge nor do I play one on TV, but common sense seems to be replaced with dictionary definitions and a socialization of the insurance contract.  I would think that judicial notice could be taken on certain facts.

• For example, can’t a hurricane which causes a “flood” can cause levees to overflow or break?
• Hasn’t the Federal Government provided just about 100 percent of all “flood” insurance payouts since the passage of the 1968 National Flood Insurance Act? 

Doesn’t these facts tell one something about the market?  Does one really believe that the insurers really intended to cover flood and that the insurers purposely misled the consumer into thinking “floods” were covered? 

I realize that this is not the current standard, but if we use the policyholder's reasonable expectations standard we are essentially saying that we interpret the policy against the interests of the insurer no matter what other evidence there is about intent or any other facts.  This just seems incorrect.  See David Rossmiller’s interesting follow up post on the opinion.