Hi Heads. Have any of you had occasion to file an insurance claim, and had it disallowed, when you thought your coverage INCLUDED what you were filing the claim for? Well, this week, I watched a legal commentary by a local lawyer who suggested that the insurance companies receiving claims for damages, and loss of life in the World Trade Centre attack, might attempt to AVOID paying such claims because this was an "Act Of War". Apparently most insurance policys have an exclusion clause denying coverage whenever Acts of War are the cause of loss or damage.
I hope that they don't pursue this course, but if and when they do, I'd be prepared to cancel whatever coverage I might have with those companys, or their subsidiarys, and switch to another company. They are apparently within their legal rights to attempt such action, but I hope they weigh the damage to their reputations against such legal advice.
The damages and loss has been astronomical, but in this instance, it may be time for them to "bite the bullet", and do the right thing. Would you continue to do business with any insurance company that might attempt to weasle out of claims by invoking such a clause?
Posted by old paint (Member # 549) on :
its the same in the home insurance....used to be you bought home insurance they covered everything. now you gota buy hurricane , flood, tornado, or such add on crap......and some companies dont even write for these......
Posted by Rick Sacks (Member # 379) on :
Thirty years ago in LA, there was this ultra conservative school I went to for a brief period to balance out my hippie thinking. One of the conclusions they held to was that ultimately the insurance companies could run the world better than tax based governments. If the insurance company owned the fire department and the sooner they got the fire out with the least amount of damage, they'd minimize losses thereby increasing held revenues. I'd love to have Lenny Bruce alive today to comment on that thinking!
Posted by RonniesTintSigns (Member # 1669) on :
Sounds a lot like our gov. they look for every way possible to get tax from us in as many ways as they can, Why? Like in the past where they can blow up other countries & give them the money to rebuild them & any thing else they can waste it on, why do they not give a dam because the money is free, it's not their's they didn't work for it.
Posted by jimmy chatham (Member # 525) on :
read your policies. they al say that they don't pay for acts of god, war, terrorism etc.
Posted by RonniesTintSigns (Member # 1669) on :
Well hell Jimmy we all know that, but the point is does that make it right?
Posted by Mark Matyjakowski (Member # 294) on :
Read about this in the paper last week and most (the biggies) insurance companies are Not going to enforce this clause (they all have it). Could you imaging the public backlash to any that did deny? Then the lawyers and media would get into it. Not just bad for business ... there would be NO business
