i personally think this is messed up because to me that is alot of damage that the earthquake caused . i think the insurance company should pay it due to the amount of damage that was done.
I’m sure the insurance company had a good reason for the denial. Something along the lines of it wasn’t a real earthquake only a slight temblor, which is not covered. Or the insurer has proof they issued a policy on already damaged property and now we cannot tell how much actual damage was done by the shifting of the fault line.
The article stated that it was denied because the damage was not due to the earthquake.
It might be that the building has the cracks as a result of the foundation settling or some other reason that the insurer in question does not cover in the products sold to the school.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are always geniuses out there who can definitively assess whether a specific coverage exists based upon a 4 sentence blurb which wouldn’t pass muster for a high school paper. If you clowns tried running your businesses with such knee-jerk decisions, you’d all be broker.
There was no definitive assessment Einstein. I was simply explaining to the other readers that the insurer was saying it was not earthquake. Read carefully.
I will let the questions of fact be debated by parties who actually can evaluate the loss.
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.
i personally think this is messed up because to me that is alot of damage that the earthquake caused . i think the insurance company should pay it due to the amount of damage that was done.
I’m sure the insurance company had a good reason for the denial. Something along the lines of it wasn’t a real earthquake only a slight temblor, which is not covered. Or the insurer has proof they issued a policy on already damaged property and now we cannot tell how much actual damage was done by the shifting of the fault line.
The article stated that it was denied because the damage was not due to the earthquake.
It might be that the building has the cracks as a result of the foundation settling or some other reason that the insurer in question does not cover in the products sold to the school.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are always geniuses out there who can definitively assess whether a specific coverage exists based upon a 4 sentence blurb which wouldn’t pass muster for a high school paper. If you clowns tried running your businesses with such knee-jerk decisions, you’d all be broker.
There was no definitive assessment Einstein. I was simply explaining to the other readers that the insurer was saying it was not earthquake. Read carefully.
I will let the questions of fact be debated by parties who actually can evaluate the loss.