The insurance policy is a legitimate and legally binding contract between parties. Obeyance of the terms and conditions of said policy place the policy in full force and effect according to the terms and conditions stated within. So often there is misunderstanding as to the rights of the insured with specific reference to the policy. The inability of the insurance company to received timely notification does create a bias for both the insurance company and the party being insured. The insurance company can not investigate the loss to determine if the actions taken by the insured are with in the course and scope of the terms and conditions as set forth in the policy. This creates an automtic bais against the insurer the moment the insured is aware of the loss, peril, risk, etc and fails to notify the insurance company. The insurance company is not privy to the actions of the insured as they relate to the claim at hand. Furthermore the insurance company can not properly advise the insured party as to their roles, rights and responsibilities as they relate to the policy. Compare this to the insurance company claiming a right to violate attorney client privilidge by way of some obscure arguement. A contract is a contract. The terms, provision and conditions are specifically stated and can not be altered or changed without the consent of all parties involved. To allow one party to do this would be to re-write the basic contract laws and to further bias one party by creating loopholes for the other.
For the Illinois Supreme Court to find for the insured in this matter would be to undermine the very basic prinicpals of contract law in Illinois and thus creat a very hostile business environment in the State of Illinois. The validty of any contract would be suspect the whims of the individual and not the merits of the document itself.
Our company addressed this problem by amending our policy conditions to state:
Duties After Loss
In case of a loss to covered property, we
have no duty to provide coverage under this
policy if the failure to comply with the
following duties is prejudicial to us.
These duties must be performed as soon as
possible (but within 1 year of loss, unless
extended by us in writing) either by you, an \”insured\” seeking coverage or a
representative of either …
The insurance policy is a legitimate and legally binding contract between parties. Obeyance of the terms and conditions of said policy place the policy in full force and effect according to the terms and conditions stated within. So often there is misunderstanding as to the rights of the insured with specific reference to the policy. The inability of the insurance company to received timely notification does create a bias for both the insurance company and the party being insured. The insurance company can not investigate the loss to determine if the actions taken by the insured are with in the course and scope of the terms and conditions as set forth in the policy. This creates an automtic bais against the insurer the moment the insured is aware of the loss, peril, risk, etc and fails to notify the insurance company. The insurance company is not privy to the actions of the insured as they relate to the claim at hand. Furthermore the insurance company can not properly advise the insured party as to their roles, rights and responsibilities as they relate to the policy. Compare this to the insurance company claiming a right to violate attorney client privilidge by way of some obscure arguement. A contract is a contract. The terms, provision and conditions are specifically stated and can not be altered or changed without the consent of all parties involved. To allow one party to do this would be to re-write the basic contract laws and to further bias one party by creating loopholes for the other.
For the Illinois Supreme Court to find for the insured in this matter would be to undermine the very basic prinicpals of contract law in Illinois and thus creat a very hostile business environment in the State of Illinois. The validty of any contract would be suspect the whims of the individual and not the merits of the document itself.
Our company addressed this problem by amending our policy conditions to state:
Duties After Loss
In case of a loss to covered property, we
have no duty to provide coverage under this
policy if the failure to comply with the
following duties is prejudicial to us.
These duties must be performed as soon as
possible (but within 1 year of loss, unless
extended by us in writing) either by you, an \”insured\” seeking coverage or a
representative of either …