Penn State Sues PMA Insurance Over Alleged Breach of Contract

March 6, 2013

  • March 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    Retired UW says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    PMA relying on abuse & molestation exclusion, perhaps?

    • March 6, 2013 at 2:59 pm
      insurance mom says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      and the abuse and molestation exclusion wasn’t in any policy, twenty or more years ago. Yes, no doubt this belongs in a court of law. It won’t be quick, and it won’t be pretty.

  • March 6, 2013 at 2:50 pm
    Penn State Parent says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Gotta wonder what notification of loss was provided to the carrier if PSU covered it all up, as the reports all say they did. Perhaps the final outcomes of the criminal trials underway for Schultz and his friend will help clarify exactly what happened. Is there really coverage in any insurance policy for illegal acts??

  • March 6, 2013 at 3:12 pm
    PA Resident says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe I heard that PMA was denying coverage because it was a known loss that they never reported. Not sure if that is the case, but I think that is why they are denying.

  • March 6, 2013 at 3:37 pm
    PSU says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Montrose

  • March 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm
    Center Point says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Penn State didn’t report the abuse to authorities and they didn’t report the potential of lawsuits stemming from abuse to the insurer.

    Two wrongs do not make a right.

    • March 7, 2013 at 1:45 pm
      Producer #1 says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 0
      Thumb down 0

      Agreed, I believe the Penn State violated the terms of their policy when they swept this under the rug. Penn State is a major university, no doubt their organization have solid policies and proceedures when it comes to abuse reporting. Some folks decided to not follow those procedures, and the result is their actions voided the policy language. Insurance policies should not cover intentional illegal actions.

      PMA is a solid insurance company, they know what they are doing when it comes to insuring educational institutions. I believe they are standing on solid ground with this exclusion.

      • March 7, 2013 at 5:40 pm
        InsGuy says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 0
        Thumb down 0

        You bet they are, but guess what – they’re in Pennsylvania. The courts will find a way to pervert the policy language into ambiguity and rule for PSU as a matter of the public good.

        you wait, they will.

  • March 11, 2013 at 12:35 pm
    Rusty says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agreed that the late reporting might be the primary reason for coverage denial. However, I don’t think denying these claims due to intentional acts could be upheld in PSU’s claim for coverage in the policy because PSU didn’t commit the intentional acts that caused injuries and damages to the victims. Rather, it was the intentional acts of one of their employees who would be denied coverage under the PSU policy by virtue of that and the fact that his actions were committed outside the realm of his occupational duties.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*