The New York Times adds a reality check on its coverage of the Nationwide ruling, something I hadn’t seen addressed in other media:
It was not a total victory, however. The judge rejected attempts by the insurers to cancel coverage for wind damage when it occurred in combination with the flooding.
That aspect of his decision, in the first trial over disputed claims of damage from the hurricane, favored storm victims and could cost the insurers hundreds of millions of dollars. Now homeowners whose claims have been denied may have the opportunity to present proof in court that at least some of the damage resulted from wind - which is the main protection provided by home insurance policies in hurricanes.
Now Scrugg’s comments claiming partial victory for what had previously seemed to be only a $1200 additional recovery, seem much less nonsensical. The ruling means (unless overturned on appeal) that if wind and surge both contributed to the loss, the insurer may be more on the hook than it thought.