I hate to admit it, but I was thinking along those same lines. What difference does it make that this man is a Holocaust survivor? Was that a question on his application for insurance?
I think the appellate court even ruled that the company had to cover his personal property, even though the policy didn’t even cover that.
What is the use having an insurance policy with any exclusions? When a jury made up of Joe Public guess who they will favor? The big bad insurance company?
The jury at the trial level and the 4th circuit appeals court did rule that the contents (BPP) were covered even though they were never covered on the policy. They claim that since the carrier didn’t specifically plead that those weren’t covered, they granted the coverage. The carrier also tried to exclude any testimony about him being a holocost survivor as being prejudicial, but the judge disagreed.
Ambiguity, the foundation of all insurance policies, should be found in favor of the defendant. In this case it appears the reverse.Their are many criminal defendants shuddering about the implications here.
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.
Sympathetic Claimant: Necessary
“Home Town” Courts: De Facto
Looooouisiana Insurance Risks: Priceless
I hate to admit it, but I was thinking along those same lines. What difference does it make that this man is a Holocaust survivor? Was that a question on his application for insurance?
I think the appellate court even ruled that the company had to cover his personal property, even though the policy didn’t even cover that.
What is the use having an insurance policy with any exclusions? When a jury made up of Joe Public guess who they will favor? The big bad insurance company?
The jury at the trial level and the 4th circuit appeals court did rule that the contents (BPP) were covered even though they were never covered on the policy. They claim that since the carrier didn’t specifically plead that those weren’t covered, they granted the coverage. The carrier also tried to exclude any testimony about him being a holocost survivor as being prejudicial, but the judge disagreed.
If this decision gets over turned in favor of the insured, could this spiral down to the commercial policies? What a mess. Will this every go away?
Ambiguity, the foundation of all insurance policies, should be found in favor of the defendant. In this case it appears the reverse.Their are many criminal defendants shuddering about the implications here.