This paper examines the widespread insurance claim disputes that emerged in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, focusing on the legal, ethical, and consumer protection dimensions of claim denials. It surveys major lawsuits — including fraud allegations against State Farm, Nationwide, and other insurers — and analyzes the central wind-versus-flood controversy that left thousands of Gulf Coast homeowners without compensation. The paper also engages scholarly perspectives on judicial regulation of insurance policies, including Daniel Schwarcz's products liability framework and the limitations of the reasonable expectations doctrine, and discusses the insurance industry's political and lobbying efforts to limit consumer legal remedies.
The paper effectively demonstrates source synthesis across registers — moving from government testimony and newspaper reporting to peer-reviewed legal scholarship. The treatment of Schwarcz's products liability theory as an alternative to the reasonable expectations doctrine shows the writer's ability to present a scholarly debate and evaluate competing frameworks rather than simply summarizing one position.
The paper opens with a broad framing of insurance inadequacy before narrowing to Hurricane Katrina specifically. It then moves through factual evidence (statistics, lawsuits, court rulings), transitions into legal theory, and closes with a critique of the insurance industry's political influence. Each section builds on the previous, culminating in a normative argument that current law disproportionately favors insurers over policyholders.
The tragic circumstances surrounding Hurricane Katrina highlighted a number of problems and issues facing not only the people of New Orleans and surrounding areas but all Americans. One such issue is often spotlighted after a disaster of this sort: the inadequacy of much of the insurance coverage offered. As with Hurricane Katrina, insurance agencies have been accused of defrauding their policyholders by reporting falsified property inspections and thereby depriving those policyholders of rightful payments. Similar concerns are often raised when insurance companies deny medical treatments to sick policyholders. Certainly, many policyholders pay a good deal of money to insurance companies over the years as a way of preparing for a time of emergency. The perception today is that insurance companies are dedicated not to providing assistance in a time of crisis but to ensuring that they do not have to pay out to the insured, employing a variety of excuses to avoid doing so. This raises the question of how legal some of these maneuvers may be, whether the system is too weighted in favor of the insurance companies, and whether the actions of those companies are ethical.
As noted by Robert P. Hartwig, President and Chief Economist for the Insurance Information Institute, Hurricane Katrina was the largest and most expensive disaster in the history of insurance. In its aftermath, claims payments to restore homes, businesses, and vehicle losses totaled $40.6 billion for some 1.74 million claims filed by policyholders in six states. In 2005, insurance losses from all hurricanes reached $57.1 billion for 3.3 million claims. Hartwig states, "These staggering numbers illustrate the magnitude of the threat posed by hurricanes to people who live in coastal regions and the financial resilience of the insurance industry and the economy of the United States" (Hartwig para. 1).
The industry makes it sound as if all claims were paid, but in fact many policyholders were not paid, or not paid enough, leading to a widespread reaction against the entire industry. In addition to bitterness about insufficient or delayed payments, many policyholders faced higher insurance premiums in the future and either reduced or eliminated their coverage — a risky strategy. Such problems affect certain segments of the population disproportionately:
"Elderly homeowners — particularly those on fixed incomes and those who have paid off their mortgages — may be the most likely to go uninsured. Most homeowners don't have that choice, because mortgage companies require borrowers to have insurance. Those whose homes are paid off can drop their policies, unless they are getting government grants or loans that require one." ("Homeowners Drop Insurance after Katrina" para. 8)
Other dissatisfied policyholders have taken legal action. A notable case was filed in U.S. District Court against major insurance companies along with the adjusters and engineering firms they employed. These entities are accused of fraudulently charging the federal government "hundreds of millions of dollars" for Hurricane Katrina claims. According to the lawsuit, these claims should have been paid but were not. The case was filed on behalf of whistleblowers Cori and Kerri Rigsby, who adjusted Katrina claims for State Farm, which along with other insurers has denied any wrongdoing. According to the lawsuit, State Farm and other major insurers "made a corporate decision to misdirect and misallocate claims from those of hurricane coverage (which a company would be required to pay) to flood claims that could be submitted and paid directly from the United States Treasury" (Lee para. 4). The plaintiffs allege that insurance companies and engineering firms they hired filed false claims and conspired to defraud the government. The suit seeks three times the amount of the overcharges to the National Flood Insurance Program, plus up to $11,000 for each violation of the federal False Claims Act; the law would also allow the whistleblowers to collect a percentage of any damages awarded. Defendants named include State Farm, Nationwide, Allstate, and USAA, plus engineering firms that examined property damage after Hurricane Katrina.
Another suit in federal court sought to determine whether thousands of people whose homes were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina could receive payouts for losses their insurance companies claimed were caused by flooding. The plaintiffs argued they were misled by their insurance agent and then denied much of their claim without a full review of the facts. The insurance company, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., argued that while wind damage is covered by its homeowners' policies, damage from flooding is excluded — and that this exclusion applies to Katrina's wind-driven storm surge.
This trial was the first of hundreds of lawsuits filed by Gulf Coast homeowners challenging insurance companies over the wind-versus-water issue. It was also charged that the insurance agent misled purchasers so that they did not buy flood insurance, partly because he would not make much money if they did (Kunzelman paras. 1–6).
The denial of claims after this disaster has largely centered on the wind-versus-flood debate. Although there have also been instances of inexperienced adjusters making faulty decisions on claims, most of the controversy surrounding the rejection of hurricane claims stems from the flood vs. wind issue — specifically, the condition in most homeowners' insurance policies that flood damage is not covered, although wind-driven rain may be: "When evaluating a claim, adjusters must determine whether flooding or winds caused damages. This task is made difficult because these two conditions are often interrelated and difficult to distinguish in hindsight" ("Why Are Hurricane Claims Being Denied?" para. 2).
In March, a federal judge ruled that insurance companies do not have to pay for flood damage caused by the city's levee breaches, based on the finding that insurers' property policies "unambiguously" excluded all types of flood damage, including damage from a man-made disaster such as the failure of the levees. Thousands of homes were submerged after the levees broke, and this ruling threatened to prevent thousands of homeowners from pursuing similar claims against insurers in state and federal courts ("Hurricane Katrina Victims Denied Insurance Claims" para. 1).
In January, State Farm agreed to pay thousands of Mississippi policyholders. The company would pay out as much as $500 million, with no cap on the total payout. State Farm also agreed to settle more than 600 individual claims for approximately $80 million. Suits in Louisiana were not affected (Chu paras. 1–7). However, only a few days later, the judge refused to accept the settlement, stating:
"In the absence of substantially more information than I now have before me, I am unable to say, even preliminarily, that the proposed settlement establishes a procedure that is fair, just, balanced or reasonable." ("Judge Blocks Katrina Insurance Settlement" para. 2)
Schwarcz, Daniel. "A Products Liability Theory for the Judicial Regulation of Insurance Policies." William and Mary Law Review, Volume 48, Issue 4 (2007).
"Why Are Hurricane Claims Being Denied?" Resource 4 (2005).
Abraham, Kenneth S. [Congressional or law review source on mass disasters and insurance — cited in text as Abraham para. 1].
You’re 49% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.