Posted On: January 12, 2007, 8:41 am CST

Posted By: JJT

Insurance policies tend to be very specific contracts stating what is covered and what is not covered. For covered items, there are usually perils that are excluded. When the wording in a policy is ambiguous, then rulings are made in favor of the insured, as it should be.

The problem that we have here is that we have judges and polititians who are trying to intrepid policy language that has already been tested through the legal process. If we continue to allow this to occur, these contracts and any other contracts won't be worth the paper they are written on.

The results if this happens could be disastrous for everyone.

Why would insurance companies want to continue to write business if they didn't know what they would be held responsible for?

And without insurance, what companies could continue to produce products or supply a service?

And without comapnies to employ us...

what a vicious cycle...

So do we settle losses based on the coverages provided for in the insurance contract or?