I just read this sentence in a Mississippi Sun Herald insuratribe against State Farm.
State Farm maintains, because of the way its policies are worded, that the company owes no money to policy holders whose property might have been damaged by wind if Katrina's storm surge was the predominant cause of the losses.
Because of the wording of the policies? The “wording” as the reporter so casually refers to is an important part of a contract—with an actual meaning and not some arbitrary language designed to make the policyholder feel good, bad, angry, happy, or even confused. The words have objective meaning and if we are going the way of textual deconstructionalism then no contracts can stand.
The title of this post is from David Rossmiller’s take on this same article. He seems to be in a literary mood today and I wanted to memorialized his imagery. His focus, though, is more on the allegations that State Farm is using a claims payment policy different from what they are actually using. In fact, David, asks the the interesting question “Why don’t we see these same types of claims handling allegations in Louisiana?” State Farm is a big player in both markets and one could make the argument that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If so, there should be evidence of this behavior in both markets. Why not?