Relying on a 17-page fax detailing policy provisions, including exclusions, seems reasonsable in spite of the fact that the final policy included an exclusion that was easy to note and understand. It is reasonable to assume the insurance company made a mistake and that a correction would be made. There are several things that could have been done better, such as the agent pointing out the exclusion at the time the poilcy was delivered — or requesting a policy correction sooner; however, it is universally accepted by many insurance agents and company underwriters that an Insured rarely reads his/her insurance policy. Of course, no where does the article indicate why the vessel sank. The cause of loss could have been something other than wear and tear, in which case the exclusion would have no bearing on the claim.
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 will bet no other contract can be suspended because someone did not read it. This is ludicrous.
Great article. Thanks for the analysis.
Relying on a 17-page fax detailing policy provisions, including exclusions, seems reasonsable in spite of the fact that the final policy included an exclusion that was easy to note and understand. It is reasonable to assume the insurance company made a mistake and that a correction would be made. There are several things that could have been done better, such as the agent pointing out the exclusion at the time the poilcy was delivered — or requesting a policy correction sooner; however, it is universally accepted by many insurance agents and company underwriters that an Insured rarely reads his/her insurance policy. Of course, no where does the article indicate why the vessel sank. The cause of loss could have been something other than wear and tear, in which case the exclusion would have no bearing on the claim.