In his sick mind he knew damn well what he was doing. We need to stop making excuses for every social deviant who decides to go on a killing spree. While his logic (or illogic) wasn’t what mainstream America finds acceptable, it nonetheless represented his decision. How can he claim he couldn’t control this singular incident when he obviously made other decisions that weren’t crazy?
…not to mention that if the convicted felon was suffering mental illness, he’d been in some sort of mental hospital, not in PRISON!! I sympathize with the families’ loss, but if the insurance policy clearly excludes any claim for recovery based on criminal actions, then accept it and move on…the way the article is written (which ain’t sayin’ much for the Journal) it looks like the families are saying, “It’s okay that you killed our children, we know you weren’t ‘yourself’ that day,” just so they can get paid? I think I’m gonna be ill…
It is the attorney for the victims who claim the shooter was not mentally fit and unable to distinguish between good and evil. These attorneys try to say it was not intentional but more of an last second accident so it can be covered under the policy. One of the first exclusions of the policy is for intentional acts. So if the victim’s attorneys and family admit it was intentional, then there is no coverage and thus no money. So they have to say it was not intentional, then covered by the policy, which leads to a settlement so they can “start the healing process”.
These attorneys try to say it was not intentional but more of an last second accident so it can be covered under the policy. One of the first exclusions of the policy is for intentional acts. So if the victim’s attorneys and family admit it was intentional, then there is no coverage and thus no money. So they have to say it was not intentional, then covered by the policy, which leads to a settlement so they can “start the healing process”. Tell more this is a good story..
that President Bush has signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2007, which reauthorizes the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program for seven years, through Dec. 31, 2014,” said Joseph Annotti, senior vice president of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, in a written statement
Insurers’ positive results through nine-months 2007 reflect not only the actions insurers have taken in the wake of 2005’s record catastrophe losses but also an unusually large dose of good luck,” said Staranczak. “Just as there are years when insurers and consumers suffer horrific losses at the hands of Mother Nature, there are other years when she is unusually benign. In 2007, despite dire predictions from all the experts, the U.S. was struck by just one hurricane — Hurricane Humberto — and it caused relatively little damage when it hit. But our good luck in 2007 doesn’t mean insurers, regulators, legislators, and consumers can relax. It is just a matter of time. Someday, we’ll be walloped by a storm that causes twice the damage done by Hurricane Katrina or more, and that means we all need to work on loss mitigation and risk management.”
What about O.J. remmber that story.. Big mike.. Did the insurance pay in the second trail? Does anyone know the insurance on this case. I do wish reporters would give all the story.
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 his sick mind he knew damn well what he was doing. We need to stop making excuses for every social deviant who decides to go on a killing spree. While his logic (or illogic) wasn’t what mainstream America finds acceptable, it nonetheless represented his decision. How can he claim he couldn’t control this singular incident when he obviously made other decisions that weren’t crazy?
…not to mention that if the convicted felon was suffering mental illness, he’d been in some sort of mental hospital, not in PRISON!! I sympathize with the families’ loss, but if the insurance policy clearly excludes any claim for recovery based on criminal actions, then accept it and move on…the way the article is written (which ain’t sayin’ much for the Journal) it looks like the families are saying, “It’s okay that you killed our children, we know you weren’t ‘yourself’ that day,” just so they can get paid? I think I’m gonna be ill…
It is the attorney for the victims who claim the shooter was not mentally fit and unable to distinguish between good and evil. These attorneys try to say it was not intentional but more of an last second accident so it can be covered under the policy. One of the first exclusions of the policy is for intentional acts. So if the victim’s attorneys and family admit it was intentional, then there is no coverage and thus no money. So they have to say it was not intentional, then covered by the policy, which leads to a settlement so they can “start the healing process”.
The article doesn’t even tell us what kind of policy it is!
How could the Journal leave out such an important little detail as that?
…it’s the JOURNAL!! ‘Nuff said…
These attorneys try to say it was not intentional but more of an last second accident so it can be covered under the policy. One of the first exclusions of the policy is for intentional acts. So if the victim’s attorneys and family admit it was intentional, then there is no coverage and thus no money. So they have to say it was not intentional, then covered by the policy, which leads to a settlement so they can “start the healing process”. Tell more this is a good story..
that President Bush has signed into law the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization and Extension Act of 2007, which reauthorizes the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program for seven years, through Dec. 31, 2014,” said Joseph Annotti, senior vice president of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, in a written statement
Insurers’ positive results through nine-months 2007 reflect not only the actions insurers have taken in the wake of 2005’s record catastrophe losses but also an unusually large dose of good luck,” said Staranczak. “Just as there are years when insurers and consumers suffer horrific losses at the hands of Mother Nature, there are other years when she is unusually benign. In 2007, despite dire predictions from all the experts, the U.S. was struck by just one hurricane — Hurricane Humberto — and it caused relatively little damage when it hit. But our good luck in 2007 doesn’t mean insurers, regulators, legislators, and consumers can relax. It is just a matter of time. Someday, we’ll be walloped by a storm that causes twice the damage done by Hurricane Katrina or more, and that means we all need to work on loss mitigation and risk management.”
Third-Quarter Results
It looks like the two previous replies belong to another story…even IJ couldn’t be that careless to leave so much information out. (I hope…)
What about O.J. remmber that story.. Big mike.. Did the insurance pay in the second trail? Does anyone know the insurance on this case. I do wish reporters would give all the story.