Another Paris question: Will insurance companies pay for the burned cars?
Viking
because hte burning was an act of "terrorism" or some such (they're
not paying for hurricane damage in New Orleans, for example). 4,700
cars burnt so far--will the owners be reimbursed?
Erick T. Barkhuis
That's what I've been wondering, too. Such clauses exist in the
Netherlands since about two years as well, so I guess it's the same in
France.
However, since it affects 1000s of 'innocent car owners', I would expect
insurance companies to pay up at least a decent percentage anyway in
western Europe, due to pressure from society.
--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.ardane.com
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
Viking
<er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
>However, since it affects 1000s of 'innocent car owners', I would expect
>insurance companies to pay up at least a decent percentage anyway in
>western Europe, due to pressure from society.
Let's hope so. Most of the burned cars are in the same
poverty-stricken neighborhoods, and the people there can ill afford to
lose those cars.
Go Fig
Barkhuis <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
> Viking [on Mon, 07 Nov 2005 13:50:08 -0500] wrote:
> > In the US, the insurance companies would refuse to pay, weaseling out
> > because hte burning was an act of "terrorism" or some such (they're
> > not paying for hurricane damage in New Orleans, for example). 4,700
> > cars burnt so far--will the owners be reimbursed?
>
> That's what I've been wondering, too. Such clauses exist in the
> Netherlands since about two years as well, so I guess it's the same in
> France.
But this will be hard pressed to see as 'terrorism'.
In the various 'liability' policies I have, I must sign an 'informed
consent' waiver indicating I have not taken the additional coverage...
it is the law.
jay
Mon Nov 07, 2005
mailto:go...@mac.com
Erick T. Barkhuis
> In article <MPG.1dd9c5f9a...@news.individual.net>, Erick T.
> Barkhuis <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
>
> > That's what I've been wondering, too. Such clauses exist in the
> > Netherlands since about two years as well, so I guess it's the same in
> > France.
>
> But this will be hard pressed to see as 'terrorism'.
The clause doesn't just mention terrorism. It mentions all types of
riots, just like the ones in France.
> In the various 'liability' policies I have, I must sign an 'informed
> consent' waiver indicating I have not taken the additional coverage...
> it is the law.
We're not talking liability policies, are we? I thought we were talking
about the car owners' insurance policies, that cover theft, own-fault
damage, or (what we call) "all risks insurance".
Of course, if you can prove that Mohammad X. burnt your car, and hold him
liable, he will have to pay for the damages. If he can, or if he's
insured...I doubt that both ways.
Go Fig
Barkhuis <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
> Go Fig [on Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:21:09 -0800] wrote:
> > In article <MPG.1dd9c5f9a...@news.individual.net>, Erick T.
> > Barkhuis <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
> >
> > > That's what I've been wondering, too. Such clauses exist in the
> > > Netherlands since about two years as well, so I guess it's the same in
> > > France.
> >
> > But this will be hard pressed to see as 'terrorism'.
>
> The clause doesn't just mention terrorism. It mentions all types of
> riots, just like the ones in France.
So what is the standard... was the first night covered... I doubt these
claims will not be covered.
>
> > In the various 'liability' policies I have, I must sign an 'informed
> > consent' waiver indicating I have not taken the additional coverage...
> > it is the law.
>
> We're not talking liability policies, are we? I thought we were talking
> about the car owners' insurance policies, that cover theft, own-fault
> damage, or (what we call) "all risks insurance".
We are talking about 'terrorism' clauses.
jay
Mon Nov 07, 2005
mailto:go...@mac.com
>
Erick T. Barkhuis
> In article <MPG.1dd9c9662...@news.individual.net>, Erick T.
> Barkhuis <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
> > The clause doesn't just mention terrorism. It mentions all types of
> > riots, just like the ones in France.
>
> So what is the standard...
Not sure.
> was the first night covered... I doubt these
> claims will not be covered.
I think it will depend on how much is yet to happen. They are burning
offices, schools, malls...not 'just' cars. It may turn into a billion
euro thing. If insurance policies' clauses allow insurance companies to
refrain from paying (for everything) and it's about really very huge
sums, things may get tough for car owners.
> > We're not talking liability policies, are we? I thought we were talking
> > about the car owners' insurance policies, that cover theft, own-fault
> > damage, or (what we call) "all risks insurance".
>
> We are talking about 'terrorism' clauses.
....coming with certain insurance policies.
--
Erick
[who is not quite sure what this has to do with .travel.europe,
but....oh, well....]
Claim Guy
"Viking" <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:nb8vm1pfbmr6buufs...@4ax.com...
It's not weaselling out, it's not called terrorism, and it's not called
"some such"
"Riot" has been excluded loss on insurance policies for decades - clearly
what is happening in France are "riots"
"Flood" is excluded from most homeowners policies, especially in flood
plains and along coasts prone to storm surge - Katrina claims that are being
denied are those that are caused only by "floods"
Insurance is a the spread of risk among many and it can't function without
an actuarial basis on which to model potential losses. What that means,
essentially, is that if you can't predict the frequency of a certain cause
of loss, or if the potential severity is too high to absorb, it is not a
good candidate for insurance. You can get flood insurance, but most people
don't want to pay for it and then complain when they are hit by a flood - go
figure. Collisions, thefts, windstorm, hail, etc., are all quite predictable
over a period of time - but not so predictable that profits are a shoo-in
for insurers.
How would an insurer predict the damage that is occurring in France, or the
$80 billion dollars in hurricane damage caused by Katrina? If society wanted
to force them to do it, you would be paying much higher rates than you are
now, and the bitching on that end of the equation would increase
tremendously as insurers raked in tremendous profits in years without such
damage. They would have to, of course to be ready for the years when riots
and Katrina were a factor.
Unfortunately, consumers view insurance as a necessary evil, so when it come
time to collect, they expect the terms of the contract that might limit
their recovery to be waived, and they aren't interested in the financial
underpinnings of the industry or to abide by the contract that was most
clearly provided to them.
Just check out the long term return on equity of the industry. It sucks,
frankly, and pales in comparison to that of most industries - industries
that no one begrudges the making of a profit. You see, you don't HAVE to by
those industries products, you WANT to - and that makes all the difference.
Guess what, life doesn't offer any guarantees. Sometimes you're going to
take a hit - especially if you choose to live in a hurricane zone, or France
:-)
Claim Guy
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dd9c5f9a...@news.individual.net...
> However, since it affects 1000s of 'innocent car owners', I would expect
> insurance companies to pay up at least a decent percentage anyway in
> western Europe, due to pressure from society.
Why should this be so?
Innocence has nothing to do with it - it is a contract with a coverage grant
and exclusions. When did private industry become responsible to provide
charity? Shouldn't this be expected of all industries, then? And
individuals?
That makes it the job of government, by definition, not private enterprise.
Claim Guy
"Go Fig" <go...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:071120051134059157%go...@mac.com...
> We are talking about 'terrorism' clauses.
Terrorism has no bearing on the situation in France - it is rioting. They
are viewed quite differently from an insurance perspective.
Mxsmanic
No. Although cars are usually insured against fire, they are not
insured against "riots" without special riders, and the insurance
companies will call these incidents "riots" in order to avoid paying.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> Let's hope so. Most of the burned cars are in the same
> poverty-stricken neighborhoods, and the people there can ill afford to
> lose those cars.
That doesn't matter to insurance companies.
Those who needed the cars to get to work are now out of a job. And
they may still be making payments on the cars they no longer have.
They obviously will not be able to afford new ones.
Mxsmanic
> Terrorism has no bearing on the situation in France - it is rioting. They
> are viewed quite differently from an insurance perspective.
It's not even rioting; it's vandalism. But you can bet that the
insurance companies will call it rioting, so that they don't have to
pay.
Mxsmanic
> "Riot" has been excluded loss on insurance policies for decades - clearly
> what is happening in France are "riots"
Well, no, it's not at all clear that these are riots. The reality is
that most of them are incidents of vandalism; no rioting involved.
Cars are torched by vandals every day in France, even during normal
times (about 200 a day nationwide).
Go Fig
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Viking writes:
>
> > In the US, the insurance companies would refuse to pay, weaseling out
> > because hte burning was an act of "terrorism" or some such (they're
> > not paying for hurricane damage in New Orleans, for example). 4,700
> > cars burnt so far--will the owners be reimbursed?
>
> No. Although cars are usually insured against fire, they are not
> insured against "riots" without special riders, and the insurance
> companies will call these incidents "riots" in order to avoid paying.
Can you give an example of the language that exempts them from
liability ?
Mxsmanic
> Can you give an example of the language that exempts them from
> liability ?
"This policy does not cover claims arising from riots."
Go Fig
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Go Fig writes:
>
> > Can you give an example of the language that exempts them from
> > liability ?
>
> "This policy does not cover claims arising from riots."
"Riots" needs to be defined too.
Mxsmanic
> "Riots" needs to be defined too.
Everything needs to be defined at some point, but just because the
definition isn't in the contract doesn't make it unenforceable.
As it happens, riots are excluded in the Code des Assurances in
France, so the insurer doesn't need to explicitly state the exclusion
in a contract. The insurer only has to put explicit language in the
contract if riot damage _is_ insured.
However, in the case of a dispute, the burden of proof falls upon the
insurer, who must demonstrate that the damage was indeed the result of
a riot (Art. L121-8).
Erick T. Barkhuis
>
> "Erick T. Barkhuis" <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1dd9c5f9a...@news.individual.net...
>
>
> > However, since it affects 1000s of 'innocent car owners', I would expect
> > insurance companies to pay up at least a decent percentage anyway in
> > western Europe, due to pressure from society.
>
> Why should this be so?
Because it has happened several times before. Insurance companies
sometimes _will_ pay despite the fact that something isn't covered. Just
like some shop owners are willing to repair a product for free, despite
the fact that it's been bought 14 months ago and there's only a one-year
warranty clause.
>
> Innocence has nothing to do with it - it is a contract with a coverage grant
> and exclusions. When did private industry become responsible to provide
> charity? Shouldn't this be expected of all industries, then? And
> individuals?
No, it shouldn't be expected. After all, contracts have been made. I was
just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies would pay
up (or at least partly) for damages, anyway.
Erick T. Barkhuis
I'm not sure what country/countries and national laws you're talking
about, Mr. Claim Guy. But I can tell you that the "terrorism clause" in
the Netherlands makes no difference whatsoever between "terror" and
"riots"
The Reid
>> That's what I've been wondering, too. Such clauses exist in the
>> Netherlands since about two years as well, so I guess it's the same in
>> France.
>
>But this will be hard pressed to see as 'terrorism'.
Well, you confused it with Egyptian terrorism,so why cant the
insurance companies? The policies may say something like "war,
riot, civil unrest".
>In the various 'liability' policies I have, I must sign an 'informed
>consent' waiver indicating I have not taken the additional coverage...
>it is the law.
in the US?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"
Jim Ley
>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:03:58 -0800, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>>Can you give an example of the language that exempts them from
>>liability ?
>
> 2. riot or civil commotion occurring elsewhere than in Great
>Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
Which suggests that a french policy is likely to not exclude riot or
civil commotion happening in france.
Jim.
Go Fig
<mar...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Maybe you could find one on the web?
But it was you who just said this:
"There are plenty to be found using google"
jay
Tue Nov 08, 2005
mailto:go...@mac.com
jeremy...@yahoo.com
Martin a écrit :
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 04:33:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Claim Guy writes:
> >
> >> Terrorism has no bearing on the situation in France - it is rioting. They
> >> are viewed quite differently from an insurance perspective.
> >
> >It's not even rioting; it's vandalism. But you can bet that the
> >insurance companies will call it rioting, so that they don't have to
> >pay.
>
> Exactly what do you consider is rioting?
>
> The legal definition is "A violent disturbance of the public peace by
> three or more persons assembled for a common purpose."
I think the Confused One was making a political point based on his
profound knowledge of French society.
It's logical, after all: since there is no racism in France, the youths
cannot be protesting against racism, and must therefore be common or
garden vandals.
G;
Keith Anderson
>On 8 Nov 2005 02:32:42 -0800, jeremy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>It's logical, after all: since there is no racism in France, the youths
>>cannot be protesting against racism, and must therefore be common or
>>garden vandals.
>
>Too easy! Garden vandals paint graffiti on garden gnomes, and on Bill
>and Ben's flower pot.
And brrom cupboards burn very easily (allegedly)
Keith, Bristol, UK
DE-MUNG for email replies
Jim Ley
>An AA policy suggests nothing about what might be found in a French
>policy. My Dutch car insurance policy is radically different to a UK
>policy. I gave you an English example. If you want a French example
>you do the work.
So what was the point of quoting an English policy which specifically
didn't include any "language that exempts them from liability ?" and
would fully pay up in the event of a riot?
You said before that "There are plenty to be found using google" that
specifically exclude rioting, could you actually provide some, as I've
not found any...
Jim.
Go Fig
<mar...@privacy.net> wrote:
> and you are too lazy to look? Are you turning into another Mixi?
>
> An AA policy suggests nothing about what might be found in a French
> policy.
So lets see: Your example does not relate to France moreover it does
not sustain the point that domestic riots are excluded coverage... why
did you post it ?
jay
Tue Nov 08, 2005
mailto:go...@mac.com
Go Fig
<mar...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:53:01 -0800, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <i201n1p0v00c6t2ab...@4ax.com>, Martin
> ><mar...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 02:24:18 -0800, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3qu0n197qoat2u97u...@4ax.com>, Martin
> >> ><mar...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:31:28 GMT, j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:25:56 +0100, Martin <mar...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:03:58 -0800, Go Fig <go...@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>Can you give an example of the language that exempts them from
> >> >> >>>liability ?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2. riot or civil commotion occurring elsewhere than in Great
> >> >> >>Britain, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Which suggests that a french policy is likely to not exclude riot or
> >> >> >civil commotion happening in france.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe you could find one on the web?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >But it was you who just said this:
> >> >
> >> >"There are plenty to be found using google"
> >>
> >> and you are too lazy to look? Are you turning into another Mixi?
> >>
> >> An AA policy suggests nothing about what might be found in a French
> >> policy.
> >
> >So lets see: Your example does not relate to France moreover it does
> >not sustain the point that domestic riots are excluded coverage... why
> >did you post it ?
>
> because you asked for an example of the language used.
And you have NOT sustained that in this example.
jay
Tue Nov 08, 2005
mailto:go...@mac.com
>
> Maybe next time you could be more explicit or do your own research.
>
> Good Bye.
Tom Peel
The problem (or the solution from the insurer's point of view) arises
when a government minister says it's a riot or an insurrection or
whatever. From that moment on, it's official, and the insurance
companies can claim their force majeure exclusion rights.
As someone else pointed out, there are 20-30 cars getting torched
every day on a normal day in France, this figure gets lost in the
background noise. The current riots must make the insurance companies
rub their hands with glee applying exclusion clauses.
T-.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
[]
> As someone else pointed out, there are 20-30 cars getting torched
> every day on a normal day in France, this figure gets lost in the
> background noise.
Which is fair enough, surely, given that it's a small fraction of the
cars that have been torched in the last couple of weeks.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
DDT Filled Mormons
>On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:29:30 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
>offy) wrote:
>
>>Tom Peel <notreal...@freenet.de> wrote:
>>
>>[]
>>> As someone else pointed out, there are 20-30 cars getting torched
>>> every day on a normal day in France, this figure gets lost in the
>>> background noise.
>>
>>Which is fair enough, surely, given that it's a small fraction of the
>>cars that have been torched in the last couple of weeks.
>
>1200 cars were torched last night according to the BBC.
Any people dead yet?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
Viking
<porthos_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Insurance is a the spread of risk among many
No, it's a way of making money for insurance companies. Your car gets
burned in Paris?
We don't cover that.
Your house gets destroyed by hurricanes?
We don't cover that.
You talk about National Flood Insurance in the US--also worthless,
also "we don't cover that." Town near here had 2,000 homes flooded
during a storm, power outages, etc. National Flood Insurance refused
to pay because the power was out, so sump pumps didn't work--never
mind that the water was a foot deep throughout the town--and it told
homeowners it was an electrical problem, and they should talk to the
power utility.
Once again: We don't cover that.
A way of "spreading" risk? Hardly.
Viking
wrote:
>Viking writes:
>
>> In the US, the insurance companies would refuse to pay, weaseling out
>> because hte burning was an act of "terrorism" or some such (they're
>> not paying for hurricane damage in New Orleans, for example). 4,700
>> cars burnt so far--will the owners be reimbursed?
>
>No. Although cars are usually insured against fire, they are not
>insured against "riots" without special riders, and the insurance
>companies will call these incidents "riots" in order to avoid paying.
Looks like you're right.
Mxsmanic
> Exactly what do you consider is rioting?
People shooting each other, destroying all property in sight, in large
numbers.
> The legal definition is "A violent disturbance of the public peace by
> three or more persons assembled for a common purpose."
So a lot of muggings are "riots," then.
I'm not sure what you mean by "legal definition," since the
definitions can vary from one jurisdiction to another.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
Mxsmanic
> The problem (or the solution from the insurer's point of view) arises
> when a government minister says it's a riot or an insurrection or
> whatever. From that moment on, it's official, and the insurance
> companies can claim their force majeure exclusion rights.
Well, no. Just because one incident might be called a riot doesn't
mean that all incidents qualify as riots.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:46:04 -0500, "Claim Guy"
> <porthos_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Insurance is a the spread of risk among many
>
> No, it's a way of making money for insurance companies. Your car gets
> burned in Paris?
> We don't cover that.
A friend of mine lived in Paris a few years ago, and claimed that his
car insurance didn't cover him, specifically, in the roundabout at the
Arc "de" Triomphe. Has anyone heard of such a thing? I suspected he was
pulling my leg at the time...
Viking
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h
offy) wrote:
>A friend of mine lived in Paris a few years ago, and claimed that his
>car insurance didn't cover him, specifically, in the roundabout at the
>Arc "de" Triomphe. Has anyone heard of such a thing? I suspected he was
>pulling my leg at the time...
*sigh* Even as insurance gets more and more expensive, it covers less.
Claim Guy
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <er...@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
news:MPG.1dda6d738...@news.individual.net...
> Claim Guy [on Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:51:36 -0500] wrote:
> >
> > "Go Fig" <go...@mac.com> wrote in message
> > news:071120051134059157%go...@mac.com...
> >
> >
> > > We are talking about 'terrorism' clauses.
> >
> > Terrorism has no bearing on the situation in France - it is rioting.
They
> > are viewed quite differently from an insurance perspective.
>
> about, Mr. Claim Guy. But I can tell you that the "terrorism clause" in
> the Netherlands makes no difference whatsoever between "terror" and
> "riots"
I have no knowledge of Dutch insurance definitions.
I would love to see what you are referring to - can you post it, please.
It would seem that if what you say is true, that there was never a need for
a terrorism exclusion in the Netherlands - since the riot exclusion common
to insurance contracts would cover it off.
Claim Guy
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:p570n1h48ravc8t5k...@4ax.com...
> Claim Guy writes:
>
> > "Riot" has been excluded loss on insurance policies for decades -
clearly
> > what is happening in France are "riots"
>
> Well, no, it's not at all clear that these are riots. The reality is
> that most of them are incidents of vandalism; no rioting involved.
> Cars are torched by vandals every day in France, even during normal
> times (about 200 a day nationwide).
I will stand behind my use of the word "clear' in describing what is
occurring in France as riots. Even if you ignore the thousands of news and
government references to the term there is this from another post in this
thread;
>The legal definition is "A violent disturbance of the public peace by
> three or more persons assembled for a common purpose."
Please post some cited definitions of "riot" that you think make the French
situation not clear.
Claim Guy
"Viking" <no...@goodgoodbye.com> wrote in message
news:tfp1n1l2orsu8v8r6...@4ax.com...
Gawd, there's nothing like an intelligent discourse based on ideas is there?
Please tell us about the claim you had that got turned down.
Carole Allen
<porthos_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>It's not weaselling out, it's not called terrorism, and it's not called
>"some such"
>Unfortunately, consumers view insurance as a necessary evil, so when it come
>time to collect, they expect the terms of the contract that might limit
>their recovery to be waived, and they aren't interested in the financial
>underpinnings of the industry or to abide by the contract that was most
>clearly provided to them.
>
>Just check out the long term return on equity of the industry. It sucks,
>frankly, and pales in comparison to that of most industries - industries
>that no one begrudges the making of a profit. You see, you don't HAVE to by
>those industries products, you WANT to - and that makes all the difference.
>
If they can weasel out they will. Just recently in Washington we had
a guy who caused a multi-car collision by chasing down his girlfriend
and ramming her car. One women injured (not the intended victim of
the guy) spent 9 days in a coma, 5 months in rehab, is still in a
wheelchair, can't work, and her insurance at first declined to pay per
her uninsured motorist provisions because they claimed the collision
wasn't an accident. Reasoning: the guy (who of course was not
insured) intended to hurt his girlfriend, so the multi-car collision
was foreseeable. Missing the point that he didn't intend to hurt a
complete stranger. After some publicity and lots of people cancelling
coverage with the company, they backtracked and are paying per her
policy terms.
People pay premiums (sometimes for many years with no claims) with the
expectation that when they suffer an injury the company will honor the
policy, and not try to redefine policy terms with tortured logic.
The Reid
>> Exactly what do you consider is rioting?
>
>People shooting each other, destroying all property in sight, in large
>numbers.
riot need not involve guns or destruction of property. The main
elements are disturbance of the peace, numbers of people and
violent behaviour.
>> The legal definition is "A violent disturbance of the public peace by
>> three or more persons assembled for a common purpose."
>
>So a lot of muggings are "riots," then.
If you charged a mugger with riot you would probably loose in
court.
>I'm not sure what you mean by "legal definition,"
I am.
>since the
>definitions can vary from one jurisdiction to another.
I think it was a legal definition from one jurisdiction, a better
question is "which one?"
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Photos of both "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"
The Reid
prestwich tesco 24h offy
> in the roundabout at the
>Arc "de" Triomphe. Has anyone heard of such a thing? I suspected he was
>pulling my leg at the time...
To take it seriously, in the UK such insurance would not meet the
legal requirements IMHO.
The Reid
>Reasoning: the guy (who of course was not
>insured) intended to hurt his girlfriend, so the multi-car collision
>was foreseeable. Missing the point that he didn't intend to hurt a
>complete stranger.
why did they think the incident was foreseeable to their insured
customer? How bizarre?
ICl...@jps.net
> It's not even rioting; it's vandalism. But you can bet that the
> insurance companies will call it rioting, so that they don't have to
> pay.
Insurance companies cannot declare riots. Only government officials can
do so and are often pressured to do so by the insurance companies.
Policies written in California have a "riot" exclusion meaning that
losses suffered during a riot are not covered.
___________________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan in 47.452 mile² San Francisco.
< http://geocities.com/dancefest/ >-< http://geocities.com/iconoc/ >
ICQ: < http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 > ---> IClast at SFbay Net
jeremy...@yahoo.com
> A friend of mine lived in Paris a few years ago, and claimed that his
> car insurance didn't cover him, specifically, in the roundabout at the
> Arc "de" Triomphe. Has anyone heard of such a thing? I suspected he was
> pulling my leg at the time...
What I heard was along the lines of insurance companies agreeing that
any accident at that roundabout is by default 50-50 responsibility.
G;
Claim Guy
"Carole Allen" <caro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:43715ec7...@news.individual.net...
> If they can weasel out they will. Just recently in Washington we had
> a guy who caused a multi-car collision by chasing down his girlfriend
> and ramming her car. One women injured (not the intended victim of
> the guy) spent 9 days in a coma, 5 months in rehab, is still in a
> wheelchair, can't work, and her insurance at first declined to pay per
> her uninsured motorist provisions because they claimed the collision
> wasn't an accident.
It wasn't an accident, she was injured as a result of a deliberate assault.
The fact that a vehicle was used is not relevant since the insurance
policy - including the uninsured motorist provisions - provide coverage for
accidents. You want to change the definition of accident to a "first person"
expectation and that is not what the legal definition is.
let's take tha car out of the equation and look at it this way; someone
bumps into you on the street because they were rushing and not look ing
where they were going. You get knocked down and injured. You would be able
to sue this individual (you can "sue" anybody, anytime, of course) and his
homeowners insurance, assuming he had any, which contains some personal
liability coverage would respond to pay the judgement. Same guy is
assaulting someone on the sidewalk and they bump into you as they tussle,
you fall down and get hurt must like before. You can still sue him, but his
insurance is not going to pay, because it does nto cover criminal acts. The
assault is the cause of the injury and it's a criminal act, which by
definition does not constitute an accident. The fact that some of the
injured parties were not the intended victim does not change the cause of
the precipitating act.
Reasoning: the guy (who of course was not
> insured) intended to hurt his girlfriend, so the multi-car collision
> was foreseeable. Missing the point that he didn't intend to hurt a
> complete stranger. After some publicity and lots of people cancelling
> coverage with the company, they backtracked and are paying per her
> policy terms.
A public relations gesture, not an admission of any error in the policy
interpretation, Corporations do this all the time even though they may be
right.
> People pay premiums (sometimes for many years with no claims) with the
> expectation that when they suffer an injury the company will honor the
> policy, and not try to redefine policy terms with tortured logic.
Well that expectation is too broad, and borne of ignorance and a sense of
entitlement.
The fact that premiums are paid without incurring claims of absolutely no
consequence if you understand the nature of insurance.
It's really quite ironic that you would refer to "honoring the policy" - the
policy does not cover the incident you described. Too many people think
insurance is just supposed to pay when something bad happens.
The Reid
>You can still sue him, but his
>insurance is not going to pay, because it does nto cover criminal acts. The
>assault is the cause of the injury and it's a criminal act, which by
>definition does not constitute an accident.
You are saying my insurances wont pay if damage is done as part
of a criminal act, burglers, muggers, speeding motorists etc? Can
someone comment on UK position?
The Reid
>>You are saying my insurances wont pay if damage is done as part
>>of a criminal act, burglers, muggers, speeding motorists etc? Can
>>someone comment on UK position?
>
>Have you read your policy? What does it exclude?
I cant see my household policy excluding burglary? So why should
my car policy exclude criminal acts? Like vandalism. Are you
saying they do?
Eivind Kjorstad
> The Reid <don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>>You are saying my insurances wont pay if damage is done as part
>>of a criminal act, burglers, muggers, speeding motorists etc? Can
>>someone comment on UK position?
> Have you read your policy? What does it exclude?
Can't speak for the countries mentioned here. In Norway and Germany the
mandatory insurance *would* pay for the damages, even if they where
recklessly or malisciously made.
However, they'd then turn around and demand the money back from the
person causing the accident. If they succeed in getting any or all the
money back from him would depend on if (s)he has that kind of money.
In other words: If a drunk driver hits you, or your property, and
damages either, you *will* get compensated by his insurance-company.
However that company will then demand the same money back from him,
quite likely putting him in debt for life if he damaged anything
valuable.
Eivind Kjørstad
The Reid
>Can't speak for the countries mentioned here. In Norway and Germany the
>mandatory insurance *would* pay for the damages, even if they where
>recklessly or malisciously made.
that's as I would expect
>However, they'd then turn around and demand the money back from the
>person causing the accident. If they succeed in getting any or all the
>money back from him would depend on if (s)he has that kind of money.
as they would in an accident where blame can be established.
Gorazd Bozic
>
> Our car insurance excludes vandalism and theft of objects from inside
> the car.
Mine includes damage through acts of vandalism, but excludes damage
which is a result of a nuclear explosion...
Gorazd
Carole Allen
>No I'm wondering about insurance. I should probably got the insurance news
>group:
>But I thought one could insure for everything, i.e. couldn't you take out
>extra insure against riots if the basic policy doesn't cover it? Can't you
>get flood insurance as an extra? What about earthquakes? My friend lives
>in an earthquake zone & I've been told there is no insurance coverage for
>her house..... Is that true? Can't you get a special policy that covers
>natural disasters?
>
I live in an earthquake zone (Seattle) and I have it on my condo and
the Association has it on the building common area. My boss has it on
her house. I had friends in Los Gatos who had it on their house. You
just have to pay more.
Carole Allen
>It wasn't an accident, she was injured as a result of a deliberate assault.
>The fact that a vehicle was used is not relevant since the insurance
>policy - including the uninsured motorist provisions - provide coverage for
>accidents. You want to change the definition of accident to a "first person"
>expectation and that is not what the legal definition is.
>
And your reasoning is exactly why the company suffered a ton of
cancellations in a 24 hour period ... and no amount of pr will fix
that ....
The Reid
>You want to change the definition of accident to a "first person"
>>expectation and that is not what the legal definition is.
>>
>
>And your reasoning is exactly why the company suffered a ton of
>cancellations in a 24 hour period ... and no amount of pr will fix
>that ....
I'm still not convinced I'm not covered for damage arising from
malicious or criminal action, I suppose I will have to read the
bloody policies :-(
Carole Allen
<don...@fell-walker.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm still not convinced I'm not covered for damage arising from
>malicious or criminal action, I suppose I will have to read the
>bloody policies :-(
>--
was stolen and damaged or stripped.. because clearly that is an
intentional tort. Yet they pay up every day for that sort of thing.
Naturally they try to recover what they can from the tortfeasor, but
usually those dudes have no money...