So if someone purchases an insurance policy it doesn't matter what the specific riders are, as long as they have a generic policy. Did any of you actually pass your contracts law class?

It is satisfying to see that all you have in respons to the above post, or the previous one, is blunt personal attack.

The lack of substance of your response... is striking.

OF COURSE they are systemattically rejecting those claims - the policies in question don't cover those claims, and they would have been HUGELY more expensive to purchase if they had. The damages in question are rather explicitly excluded from the policies in question.

If you have any interest in justice and the rule of law, you should be on the insurance company's side in this.

It is ironic that Dugger, whose entire posts on the Nationwide litigation consist entirely of personal attacks and absolutely no legal analysis or examination of the contractual language, is criticizing the commenter who notes the lack of legal analysis as committing a "personal attack."

If Dugger is interested in substantive debate, why doesn't he acknowledge any of the six Point of Law posts on the subject?

Example of why the insurance company SHOULD be rejecting these claims:

I go into McDonald's. I order a standard hamburger. I pay for a standard hamburger. When my hamburgr comes, I demand a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese Combo Meal (super-sized). I then threaten to sue if I don't get it. I then actually DO sue when I don't get it.

The people suing here bought the cheap model, then sued when it turned out to be the cheap model instead of the expensive model.

How hard is that to understand?

Hi Ted,

I think this is our first direct exchange. Since you and I will be at this for years into the future, and I am sure that there is much about which we will disagree, I would like to start off by saying I hope that we can have a cordial and mature discussion (and often disagreement) about these issues.

I have to say that I am disappointed and not impressed by the "attack" nature of many of your and other tort "reform" comments on this blog so far.

Hopefully, the quality and tone can be improved over time.

I am sincerely interested in engaging with you on these issues, and am happy for us to disagree to disagree about issues.

I encourage you and your peers, when you chose to come to his blog - which I very much encourage and invite - to do so in a respectful and good faith manner.

That said, for my legal analysis read the previous full post on Katrina insurance linked to the above post and then let's have a real discussion and not hit and run attack comments which evidence an unwillingness to fully engage the issue (with the exception of your spirited discussion with Justinian – I hear you two already go way back… and so it’s a continuation of a pre-Tort Deform thing)

Here’s to hoping that through honest and respectful discussion of these issues that we can even find some point s on which we agree.

We welcome your intense interest in Tort Deform: The Civil Justice Defense Blog and hope that you continue to offer your passionate point of view to the discussion.

Most sincerely,
Cyrus Dugger

I have not made any "attacks" other than to note flaws in your argumentation, and your failure to engage in the actual arguments made by reformers. (I've read "the previous full post on Katrina insurance"; you apparently haven't read any of the posts or op-eds I've written on the subject, or seen the C-SPAN debate I hosted on the issue, or even the Overlawyered post where I discussed your "previous full post" given that you seem to think I haven't read your post.)

But again, we have a bit of a mote and beam problem: do you consider Justinian's post today about types of reformers to be "respectful and good faith"? How about Eve's rant about insurance companies: is that the sort of tone you want for the blog? Is your consistent use of scare quotes respectful? I have no control over the rhetoric used by third parties who are disturbed by reflexive anti-reform posts that fail to address the consequences of their arguments, but you certainly have a say over what sort of posts appear at the top of your blog. Heal thyself.

I support reform when it makes everyone (except attorneys) better off, and I don't when it doesn't make America as a whole better off. I've published speaking out against reform legislation I thought poorly structured. My commitment to Tikkun Olam, making the world a better place, is passionate, but my point of view isn't. It's well-reasoned.