Problems settling “wind versus water” claims after Hurricane Katrina–with policyholders, including members of Congress, challenging denials based on the standard flood exclusion–generated unwanted negative publicity for the insurance business. The fallout has included insurers being skewered in Washington hearings and initiatives launched to repeal the industry's federal antitrust immunity.
To avoid all these problems, some have wondered whether it might have been better for insurers to just pay all Katrina losses, based on a so-called “moral obligation.”
The questions posed for this article sought comments on the ethical ramifications of settling claims based on “moral obligations,” and whether such settlements should be extended only to “victims” of catastrophes or to all “victims” of unfortunate events, regardless of whether insurance coverage applied.
Recommended For You
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
