Why should they pay before it is determined that they even have an obligation to?
If someone sued you for damages you felt you were not liable for would you simply pay them off? I think not. But since it is a big bad insurance company you feel they should roll over and pay out regardless of there being any determination first that they even have an obligation to pay?
Insurance is not a lottery designed to make people rich. But when big payouts are awarded people like you cheer because you feel someone “stuck it” to the corporate giant; when in reality the people being hurt are the rest of the policyholders who will bear the burden of paying the award through higher premiums.
No, this would not be comp. It’s a GL claim against the design firm.
Since Hartford was sitting excess over someone else this was handled in their specialty unit. Just about all of their GL policies have a professional exclusion for this very reason – too much severity potential from something like this.
Just what Hartford needs right now, some more bad news. Stock now at $6.56, amazing.
The wording of this article is so strange, and obviously written that way to generate some noise. HC does not “want” to pay? How about “there is no coverage for…” Oops, not as sexy that way.
I agree on the wording being sensational. Similar to the headline stating that Hartford is trying “to duck” the lawsuit as oposed to trying to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it has no merit.
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.
Wow! Now that’s a surprise an Insurance Company not wanting to pay a claim!
Mm Mm Mm!
Wow! Now that’s a surprise, a plaintiff wanting an insurance company to pay a claim they may not be legally liable to have to pay!
If the policy specifically excluded professional liability (or as Hartford put it “Professional performance”) then why should Hartford have to pay?
Would that not be a Comp Claim?
Either way they should pay and work it out on their own but instead they stroke!
Why should they pay before it is determined that they even have an obligation to?
If someone sued you for damages you felt you were not liable for would you simply pay them off? I think not. But since it is a big bad insurance company you feel they should roll over and pay out regardless of there being any determination first that they even have an obligation to pay?
Insurance is not a lottery designed to make people rich. But when big payouts are awarded people like you cheer because you feel someone “stuck it” to the corporate giant; when in reality the people being hurt are the rest of the policyholders who will bear the burden of paying the award through higher premiums.
No, this would not be comp. It’s a GL claim against the design firm.
Since Hartford was sitting excess over someone else this was handled in their specialty unit. Just about all of their GL policies have a professional exclusion for this very reason – too much severity potential from something like this.
Just what Hartford needs right now, some more bad news. Stock now at $6.56, amazing.
The wording of this article is so strange, and obviously written that way to generate some noise. HC does not “want” to pay? How about “there is no coverage for…” Oops, not as sexy that way.
I agree on the wording being sensational. Similar to the headline stating that Hartford is trying “to duck” the lawsuit as oposed to trying to dismiss the suit on the grounds that it has no merit.
Exactly. Who “wants” to shell out $6M or whatever it is that they don’t otherwise have to?!
Of course! What are you a fool?