|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4588 | Insurance | 01/11/2006
A Biloxi attorney and homeowners along the Gulf Coast area have filed a class action law suit against State Farm Insurance Company, alleging the company has refused to pay for hurricane damage to their homes, even though the plaintiffs purchased "all perils" homeowner insurance.
The Biloxi attorney filed the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Gulfport on behalf of attorney Judy Guice and homeowners in the area. The lawsuit contends that State Farm is obligated to fully cover the losses of everyone named in the suit who purchased the all perils policy. State Farm denied coverage under Guice's homeowner's policy, citing an exclusion for water damage that includes tidal surge. But Guise argues that the policy is worded so that all damage is covered unless it would have occurred "only" as a result of the tidal surge. Wind damage is a covered peril and since it contributed to the damage of the home it should be covered, the suit alleges. An argument in the case is whether a wind-driven storm surge is the same as flooding. Insurers say they shouldn't have to pay for water damage for those who did not have flood policies. The homeowners say wind-driven water is a secondary consequence of wind, which is covered in homeowners' policies. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Insurance Cases of Interest A class action lawsuit has been filed in the District Court of Southern California against Universal Life Resources (ULR), an insurance broker that provides professional services concerning sponsorship, implementation and/or modification of employee-benefit plans, alleging conspiracy and fraudulently marketing, selling and administering insurance products through employee-benefit plans. Class members seek declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, costs and expenses of the action. A class action lawsuit has been filed in the Northern District Court of Ohio against RR Donnelly (formerly Moore-Wallace North America, Inc.) for violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA is a federal law that sets minimum standards for most voluntarily established pension and health plans in private industry to provide protection for individuals in these plans.
Class members seek a determination that the Pension Plan was discontinued on or about December 31st, 2000 and terminated on June 4th, 2001 and that the members of the class are entitled to the surplus assets remaining in the pension fund after the satisfaction of all defined benefit Plan liabilities.
The parties have reached a nationwide $2.3+ million final settlement in an action filed against Imperial Premium Finance, Inc. and related entities on behalf of persons who financed an insurance policy with Imperial between June 7, 1996, and February 2, 2004. The action alleged that Imperial kept money returned by insurance companies that was actually intended for policyholders, in violation of state insurance law. Persons eligible to take part in the settlement should contact attorneys for the class as soon as possible. A class action has been filed against Kennecott Holdings Corporation for denying medical insurance benefits and claim denial review against the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The class seeks costs, interests and attorneys’ fees. The parties have reached a tentative multimillion dollar settlement in an action filed against United Parcel Service, Inc. on behalf persons who bought "excess value" package insurance from UPS going as far back as 1984. The action alleges that UPS overcharged for the insurance in violation of state and federal laws. Customers will be able to apply for UPS vouchers once the settlement is finalized. A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Florida, alleges that cell phone insurance is being promoted in a “deceptive and outrageous” manner by cell phone equipment insurers. The lawsuit alleges replacement telephones are often cheap, used, or refurbished models which further decrease the value of the insurance and monthly premiums are misleading since they don't really insure the phone in the event of a loss. |
IT'S FREE
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
