Louisiana’s VPL dates back to 1900. It provides in relevant part:
Under any fire insurance policy insuring inanimate, immovable property in this state, if the
insurer places a valuation upon the covered property and uses such valuation for
purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the policy, in the case of
total loss the insurer shall compute and indemnify or compensate any covered loss of, or
damage to, such property which occurs during the term of the policy at such valuation
without deduction or offset, unless a different method is to be used in the computation of
loss.
In Chauvin, the homeowners maintained that they were entitled to the face value of their policies under the VPL because their homes sustained some damage from wind, a covered peril, even though the remaining loss resulted from flooding, a non-covered peril.
In finding for the insurers, the Fifth Circuit determined the language of the VPL to be ambiguous. The court next looked at the purpose behind the VPL. The Fifth Circuit determined that the VPL only requires an insurer to pay the agreed face value of the property if the property is rendered a total loss from a covered peril. In finding for the insurers, the court held:
a finding that the statute requires insurers to pay the agreed face value of the property,
even if an excluded peril (flooding) causes the total loss, runs counter to the VPL’s effort
to link insurance recoveries to premiums paid. Such an interpretation of the statute would
force the insurer to pay for damage resulting from a non-covered peril for which it did not
charge a premium.
This decision has significant implications for many of the remaining cases in Louisiana concerning Katrina-related damage. We will continue to provide updates on these issues on InsureReinsure.com.
