HILO — A judge denied a motion to dismiss a claim brought against Lloyd’s of London by an elderly Puna couple who allege their insurer acted in bad faith by not approving the claim they made after losing their home during the eruption of Kilauea volcano earlier this year.
HILO — A judge denied a motion to dismiss a claim brought against Lloyd’s of London by an elderly Puna couple who allege their insurer acted in bad faith by not approving the claim they made after losing their home during the eruption of Kilauea volcano earlier this year.
The order by Hilo Circuit Judge Henry Nakamoto was filed Nov. 13. It keeps alive a civil lawsuit filed by 77-year-old Philip Haysmer and his 70-year-old wife, Lanell Haysmer, former homeowners from the Leilani Estates subdivision.
Lloyd’s, as well as co-defendants Specialty Program Group LLC, Arm Claims Inc., doing business as Alternative Risk Management, and John Mullen and Co., sought the dismissal of the Haysmers’ bad faith and consumer protection claims.
The Haysmers allege Lloyd’s and the others failed to honor the Haysmers’ insurance claim in good faith following the destruction of the their home in a May fire during the lower East Rift Zone eruption of Kilauea this year.
Despite paying nearly $3,000 a year for homeowner’s coverage with Lloyd’s, the Haysmers’ claim was denied by an unlicensed claims adjuster from an unlicensed claims adjusting company located 4,000 miles away in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Haysmers’ attorney, Jeffrey Foster, said in court Nov. 4.
Foster further alleged no one from Lloyd’s of London or anyone else visited the Haysmers’ property to inspect the damage before issuing a denial.
“For seven months, Mr. and Mrs. Haysmer have received their fair share of bad news,” Foster said. “It was nice to be able to deliver a bit of good news for a change.”
Why a $3,000 premium yearly for homeowners insurance? My home on the other side of the island is probably worth 3 times theirs and I pay 1/3rd of that?
Um, because duh, no other carriers wanted to insure in a Volcano zone?
Exactly, but if Lloyds of London’s policy excluded liability for volcano hazards, why would it cost three times more than a home outside a high risk lava zone? What additional risk was the homeowner paying for? That’s my point.
From Lloyds’ standpoint — maybe the risk of having to pay out or settle if/when something like this happened, and disgruntled policy holders sue them for misleading, deceptive practices. Said partly with tongue-in-cheek sarcasm… but their bean counters surely account for litigation risk in their mathematical models, and they price accordingly.