About Me

The Insurance Company Defends Its Decision to Eliminate a Famous Garden Planter
Ed Brown is Ohio's right-wing Independent Senator. The Botanic Garden of Nationwide Gardens named after him is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world. What more for a person who represents the very heart and soul of Ohio? This area of Ohio is synonymous with green living and tourism. It is home to the world's largest collection of trees and plants.

In 2021, the company purchased the Botanic Garden of Nationwide Gardens from the Wabash National Forest Service. Headed by former governor John Kasich, the board included some of America's top scientists. They brought in several specialists including famous botanist John Scott Shepherd.

In 2021, the company began with the construction of two mega-poles for hikers and boaters to access the gardens. The plan was to connect these two parks into a walkway that would give a nature lovers' delight. Unfortunately, the construction on those two mega-poles was stopped just before completion due to concerns over the liability of the landowner. Brown believes this is a "fool" because it will benefit the entire community. In this case, the landowner should sue Brown and the insurance company.

In July of 2021, the owner of the Botanic Garden of Nationwide Gardens contacted the Insurance Company to file a claim. According to this letter, the botanic plant on the property was infected with deadly scale insects that were damaging the plants. This infestation threatened the plant's existence as a food source. However, the insurance company determined that the scale insects were not poisonous and could not kill the plant. Because of this, the claim was denied and investigation into the matter was closed.

An inspector performed an investigation of the insurance claim and determined that Ed Brown had made a number of misstatements on his insurance application. Specifically, the inspector found that the claim failed to include a statement admitting that the owner knew the insects would be an issue. Furthermore, the inspector found that the claim did not include any proof that the infestation would harm the plant, the reason that the company denies liability.

Brown, however, does own the property. On August 7, the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation sent a letter to the Insurance Company stating that this claim was valid. According to this letter, the state's insurance regulatory agency had received many similar complaints against Ed Brown and the company had taken action in response to these complaints. The Florida Office of Insurance Regulation stated that the company will now be required to include language in all policies that explicitly states that "if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a catastrophe or other event caused damage to real property owned by the insurer, the insured's coverage under this policy will exclude coverage for such damage." This stipulation will take effect in all states within three months of this ruling. This stipulation is retroactive and will only affect newly written policies, not policies that have already been written or insured.

Brown may appeal the Florida OIRR's decision to the state court. If he does, it could be a very long legal battle. Under Florida law, all policies must include a section stipulating that damages incurred by the insured from events covered under the policy will not be covered by the policy if it is found that the damage was caused by an insured occurrence. This means that if an edict or order of the court prohibits Ed from working on his garden, the policy would still cover the cost of any damage that he causes to his property.

According to a spokesperson from the Insurance Company, "We believe that Mr. illinois-car-insurance.com was a product of his own personal taste, and that he should not be held responsible for the claims that might be filed against the organization over this issue. However, we are pleased to have the opportunity to settle this matter with Mr. Brown, following our review of the evidence that we reviewed in this case." Brown, however, remains displeased with the ruling. "The ruling gives Florida a free hand to police its own laws," he said. "It also gives the insurance companies more control over the rules that govern their businesses."