ADVERTISEMENT

Pipe Lawsuit dot Com

DFSNOLE

Ultimate Seminole Insider
Gold Member
Sep 25, 2002
46,344
25,759
1,853
DeFuniak Springs Country Club
"If your house was built before 1975, you might be sitting on a ticking time bomb"

giphy.gif


Morgan and Morgan is flooding the local airwaves with ads about potential lawsuits to force your insurance companies to pay to replace cast iron drain pipes installed in houses built before 1975. They use all the catch phrases like "rotting away out of your sight" and "catastrophic water damage".

First, cast iron pipes have a better chance of clogging up than ever rusting through but even if that happened, they were only used on drain pipes so they're never under pressure so catastrophic might be a bit of hyperbole.

Second, how can your insurance company be responsible for paying to replace something that was installed within accepted construction means and methods of the time when the home was constructed and should have been a known when the house was purchased and insured?

Locker Room lawyers and those of you who play the role on TV, what am I missing?

(Btw, I am so tired of all the M&M commercials. What a pompous ass.)

https://www.pipelawsuit.com/
 
I believe most homeowner's insurance policies cover burst pipes and water damage resulting from the incident. I also believe insurance companies look for an out where someone tried to do the work themselves, did not hire a licensed contractor, and things went wrong. People generally despise lawyers until they need one, but I understand how this seems like a money grab.

I've never been involved in this type of litigation so I'm shooting from the hip. https://www.google.com/search?q=not...gdii=6bg3QYvO8QOlNM:&imgrc=SIjmtycKGaORlM:Not my bag baby.
 
For insurance coverage, it doesn’t matter or is not a factor in the analysis that it was an accepted construction practice. Here, most likely replacing the pipe would not be covered but any ensuing damage to the home would be. Sounds like they have an argument to try to trigger coverage for the pipe itself
 
For insurance coverage, it doesn’t matter or is not a factor in the analysis that it was an accepted construction practice. Here, most likely replacing the pipe would not be covered but any ensuing damage to the home would be. Sounds like they have an argument to try to trigger coverage for the pipe itself
Preemptively?
 
First, cast iron pipes have a better chance of clogging up than ever rusting through but even if that happened, they were only used on drain pipes so they're never under pressure so catastrophic might be a bit of hyperbole.

I dunno. Poopastrophic sounds way worse.
 
They're the Wal-Mart of ambulance chasers. They've been firmly planted in Nashville for years, and I recently saw M&M ads in Indianapolis.
 
They've been advertising that for a while. It seems that their MO in all types of cases is using the threat of litigation to leverage a quick settlement. They want to get a large volume of cases, create a template for how to handle the cases, then have a bunch of low level employees crank out the work so M&M can collect a hefty percentage fee of the settlements.

They are FOR THE PEOPLE ... cause that's whose $$ makes them rich.
 
DFS, any chance they are trying to use a mob of people (litigants) and then political pressure with the govt to force the ins companies to make a payout? Even if they INS companies didn't have any involvement? If , hypothetically, something happened, the people would end up filing against their insurance anyways.
 
Let's organize a pay per view cage match - Shunnarah vs. Morgan - the proceeds would cover any losses for millions of homeowners lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT