In response to Ms. Kegley: Why so much apparent anger towards Mr. Silverstein? Assuming that he is not an insurance professional, I can understand why he believes that there were 2 “occurrences”. a matter-of-fact, the issue of the number of “occurrences” rested primarily on how it is defined in the different policies that were at issue in the litigation.
one day, one plan, one group, one event whats the problem, greed just plain greed and the loser is the consumer who has to pay the upcharge because of greedy attorneys another example of fine print being interpreted by attorneys
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
In response to Ms. Kegley: Why so much apparent anger towards Mr. Silverstein? Assuming that he is not an insurance professional, I can understand why he believes that there were 2 “occurrences”. a matter-of-fact, the issue of the number of “occurrences” rested primarily on how it is defined in the different policies that were at issue in the litigation.
one day, one plan, one group, one event whats the problem, greed just plain greed and the loser is the consumer who has to pay the upcharge because of greedy attorneys another example of fine print being interpreted by attorneys
You bet they would have, so would have Bush and Kerry.
It is the American Way weather you agree or not.
Houtz