Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility

For those we lost, We will not forget 09/11/2001

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
— The Continental Congress, July 4, 1776

“The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt (Commonwealth Club Address, 1932)

“Roosevelt was wrong! The principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence are the principles of individual liberty. Our unalienable rights, given to us by God are given to us as individuals. Our rights do not come from society or the government, and they cannot be redefined by politicians. The nature of these rights carries with it the implication of individual responsibility, without which we surrender them.”
— Perri Nelson, November 6, 2008

<< Microsoft to start selling adware... | Main | Friday, Saturday, Sunday >>

A victory for common sense

Published Thu, Aug 2 2007 2:54 PM
Technorati Tags: Courts

Sometimes, when I read news about court rulings handed down by federal judges I have to shake my head in despair. Some judges simply have no common sense, and others prefer to push their personal agendas for social change through their rulings without regard to law.

Every now and then though, federal courts get things right. Such was the case recently with a ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

NEW ORLEANS -- Hurricane Katrina victims whose homes and businesses were destroyed when floodwaters breached levees in the 2005 storm cannot recover money from their insurance companies for the damages, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
The case could affect thousands of rebuilding residents and business owners in Louisiana. Robert Hartwig, chief economist at the industry-funded Insurance Information Institute in New York, said in June that a ruling against the industry could have cost insurers $1 billion.
"This event was excluded from coverage under the plaintiffs' insurance policies, and under Louisiana law, we are bound to enforce the unambiguous terms of their insurance contracts as written," Judge Carolyn King wrote for a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As a result, the panel found those who filed the suit "are not entitled to recover under their policies," she said.

In effect what the judges in this case said was "If your insurance policy explicitly says it does not cover flood damage then your insurance company does not have to pay claims for flood damage." Isn't it a shame when it takes an appeals court to state the obvious?

The plight of the Katrina victims is truly sad. After all, who wants to lose their home in a flood? Even so, trying to force an insurance company to pay a claim for something that they aren't insuring you against is still wrong. There's a reason why insurance companies don't cover flood damage by default.

If you want flood insurance, you can get it, but you'll have to pay a higher premium. If you aren't willing to pay the higher premium, don't expect the insurance company to honor a claim that your policy explicitly excludes.

Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=909
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2007/8/2/909.aspx

Subscribe to this entry's comment feed. (Atom)

Angel responded with: