QUESTION: Why is it, when an insurance company is sued for \”intentional acts claims\”), the insurance company states affirmative defenses whereby, intentional acts are not covered?
QUESTION: Why is it, when an insurance company has to pay for covered loss damage claims,(e.g. arson/fire), the insurance companies file lawsuit to recover their losses paid on the \”intentional acts claims\”?
I\’m glad you don\’t handle my insurance! You obviously have not read nor do you understand the insurance contract. Damages caused by intentional act of an insured are specifically excluded in most policies. Recovery of damages paid by an insurance company is called subrogation – where the insurance company has the right (some would say obligation) to collect back from those reponsible for damages paid.
Neither of you read the article. The suit has nothing to do with intentional acts. Even if it did, the ranger did not intend to burn down the forest. It alleges negligent supervision on the part of the Forest Service. As far as I know, negligence is usually covered under a liability policy.
If lighting strikes the ground and starts a fire in an area of land that is managed by state/federal forest department, where the fire ultimately causes proerty damage to homes, would the forestry department be negligent for not removing the brush and undergrowth that were allowed to be there to add fuel to the lightening strike causing the fire?
If this logic holds true, then EACH INSURANCE COMPANY SHOULD SUE THE UNITED STATES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF HURRICANE LOSSES BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING, WHICH IS CAUSING INCREASED HURRICANE ACTIVITY LEADING TO BILLIONS OF CLAIMS PAID BY INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Oh GOD, whats next. Im sure there is a lawyer somewhere already working on HIS deposition.
I think some people are over reacting here. The fire wasn\’t set by mother nature, it was set by a FOREST RANGER!! I don\’t think it unreasonable to look to the Forest Service for SOME liability.
Whoops! I was not commenting on the article itself, but the apparent lack of insurance knowledge demonstrated by ins agt. I don\’t wish to get involved in a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuits, especially if the discussion is going to be politicized. I don\’t have enough knowledge of the facts to get into that debate.
QUESTION: Why is it, when an insurance company is sued for \”intentional acts claims\”), the insurance company states affirmative defenses whereby, intentional acts are not covered?
QUESTION: Why is it, when an insurance company has to pay for covered loss damage claims,(e.g. arson/fire), the insurance companies file lawsuit to recover their losses paid on the \”intentional acts claims\”?
Perhaps it is because \”THEY CAN\”?
I\’m glad you don\’t handle my insurance! You obviously have not read nor do you understand the insurance contract. Damages caused by intentional act of an insured are specifically excluded in most policies. Recovery of damages paid by an insurance company is called subrogation – where the insurance company has the right (some would say obligation) to collect back from those reponsible for damages paid.
Neither of you read the article. The suit has nothing to do with intentional acts. Even if it did, the ranger did not intend to burn down the forest. It alleges negligent supervision on the part of the Forest Service. As far as I know, negligence is usually covered under a liability policy.
If lighting strikes the ground and starts a fire in an area of land that is managed by state/federal forest department, where the fire ultimately causes proerty damage to homes, would the forestry department be negligent for not removing the brush and undergrowth that were allowed to be there to add fuel to the lightening strike causing the fire?
If this logic holds true, then EACH INSURANCE COMPANY SHOULD SUE THE UNITED STATES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF HURRICANE LOSSES BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES IS THE LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO GLOBAL WARMING, WHICH IS CAUSING INCREASED HURRICANE ACTIVITY LEADING TO BILLIONS OF CLAIMS PAID BY INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Oh GOD, whats next. Im sure there is a lawyer somewhere already working on HIS deposition.
Spud
I think some people are over reacting here. The fire wasn\’t set by mother nature, it was set by a FOREST RANGER!! I don\’t think it unreasonable to look to the Forest Service for SOME liability.
Whoops! I was not commenting on the article itself, but the apparent lack of insurance knowledge demonstrated by ins agt. I don\’t wish to get involved in a discussion of the merits (or lack thereof) of the lawsuits, especially if the discussion is going to be politicized. I don\’t have enough knowledge of the facts to get into that debate.