A big gap in hurricane insurance coverage surprised this Coast policyholder. Now he’s suing
A Bay St. Louis homeowner had no idea — until it was too late — that his insurance policy excluded roof damage from coverage in a hurricane, says a lawsuit he has filed against his insurance company and agency.
Patrick Vice-Stokes is suing insurance carrier Lloyd’s of London, along with insurance agent Stan Gartman and Gartman Insurance Agency of Ocean Springs in Hancock County Circuit Court. He’s seeking unspecified damages to compensate him for Hurricane Zeta damage, plus the distress he’s suffered over losses he thought were covered, and punitive damages for what he claims was gross negligence on the part of Lloyd’s and Gartman.
Lloyd’s and Gartman have not yet filed responses to the lawsuit and did not immediately respond to inquiries from the Sun Herald.
Vice-Stokes, represented by attorney Christopher Van Cleave of Biloxi, says he acquired his Lloyd’s policy in March 2019 and renewed it at the same price, $1,992.71, a year later.
He said that he was not notified the total roof exclusion had been added, reducing his coverage. State law requires that policyholders be notified beforehand of any coverage reduction or change.
Andy Case, director of consumer affairs for the Mississippi Insurance Department, said roof exclusions are being added to more policies because of the correlation between aging roofs and wind damage from severe storms.
“Not every insurer has roof exclusions but a lot of them do for that reason,” he said. Roof exclusions allow policyholders to keep coverage for catastrophic losses without having the expense of roof replacement before they can secure insurance, he said.
But in no case should the exclusion be added without a policyholders’ knowledge. He said policyholders should always review correspondence about their insurance coverage.
“I would be very concerned if a homeowner has a roof exclusion and they didn’t know it,” he said.
No insurance coverage for hurricane losses
Hurricane Zeta hit in October 2020, damaging Stokes’ roof and allowing in water that caused further damage to the ceiling and interior of his home.
A Lloyd’s investigation verified hurricane damage to the house, including roof damage. Stokes learned in March 2021 that he would receive no reimbursement for his Zeta losses after an unspecified deductible and the roof exclusion were applied.
Lloyd’s claimed its ‘Total Roof Exclusion Endorsement,’ added when the policy renewed, meant “there was no coverage under the policy for any loss or damage, caused directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by roof damage . . . of any kind . . . No coverage is provided for the roof or any other resulting damage.”
The law says Stokes should have been notified of the change in coverage 30 days before policy renewal.
“Such an exclusion,” his lawsuit says, “is completely contrary to the primary purpose of obtaining insurance to protect one’s home against hurricanes and similar storms on the Gulf Coast.”
Policyholders wants losses covered, punitive damages
Because Lloyd’s unfairly denied his claim, Stokes said, he had to take out a 30-year loan for roof repairs. He also had to come up with money to tarp his roof and repair other hurricane damage to his home. The stress, his lawsuit says, more likely than not contributed to his need for additional heart surgery.
The lawsuit claims Lloyd’s breached its duty to deal with him fairly and in good faith. He accuses the company of deception and gross negligence and says Gartman also was grossly negligent in failing to inform him of any coverage reduction or secure the coverage he requested.
In addition to compensating him for his Zeta losses, attorney’s fees and court costs, plus interest, Stokes is asking that Lloyd’s and Gartman pay an unspecified amount in punitive damages.
