The federal flood insurance program was dogged after Superstorm Sandy by allegations of improperly altered engineering reports and low-balled claims payments, and now some south Louisiana policyholders wonder if they are confronting the same issues.
WWL-TV reports that flood-impacted homeowners say they are fighting over their insurance claims resulting from the Great Flood of 2016.
Baton Rouge couple Alfreda Jackson and Henry Smith say they were livid after being denied insurance money for their floors based on a report from the engineering firm U.S. Forensic.
The report attributed the broken, soggy flooring and water-stained subfloors to poor ventilation in the crawl space and the effects of air conditioning during the hot, damp summer before the flood.
Meanwhile, Bucky and Vivian Millet, a Lake Arthur couple in their 70s, paid premiums for decades to carry $50,000 in flood coverage, but their insurance company only offered them $21,000 to cover damage to the heating, ventilation and air conditioning system that sits under the house. A U.S. Forensic report notes leaning piers, but says they were caused by “long term” earth movement, the floor damage by “long term and repeated moisture intrusion.” The engineer couldn’t entirely rule out the flood as a possible cause of warping in the floors, but it generally states most of the damage was pre-existing.
While it’s hard to determine the validity of these findings, the families are concerned about U.S. Forensic’s history. The firm was accused of “reprehensible gamesmanship” by a federal judge for how it handled several Superstorm Sandy claims in New York.
According to a testimony in a case brought by Sandy victim Deborah Ramey in Long Beach, New York, U.S. Forensic had off-site engineers alter the findings of an engineer who actually did Ramey’s inspection.
The case received national attention when it was featured in a 60 Minutes investigation on CBS in 2015, though U.S. Forensic has never been charged with any crime.
U.S. Forensic’s managing partner, Gary Bell, told WWL-TV that the language in his company’s reports often looks the same because they are required to check on four specific structural elements during each damage inspection. Bell also stands by the “peer review” process employed in the Ramey case and many others.
