Paragraphs 6-10 in the London Bridge section of this article show a potential problem that will likely yield litigation in the near future when liberal government bureaucrats fail to classify an act of terrorism as such, opting for more politically correct alternatives, such as ‘workplace violence’ or a ‘an uprising due to a reaction to a You-tube video, leading to violence’.
Smart carriers offering these types of covers would be wise to define ‘terrorism’ or other coverage triggers in specific legal terms, which are supported by prior court rulings and sustained by subsequent reference court rulings. Otherwise, they are leaving the door wide open for varied interpretations of coverage triggers by plaintiffs lawyers, or class action lawsuits’ layers upon layers of lawyers upon lawyers.
Paragraphs 6-10 in the London Bridge section of this article show a potential problem that will likely yield litigation in the near future when liberal government bureaucrats fail to classify an act of terrorism as such, opting for more politically correct alternatives, such as ‘workplace violence’ or a ‘an uprising due to a reaction to a You-tube video, leading to violence’.
Smart carriers offering these types of covers would be wise to define ‘terrorism’ or other coverage triggers in specific legal terms, which are supported by prior court rulings and sustained by subsequent reference court rulings. Otherwise, they are leaving the door wide open for varied interpretations of coverage triggers by plaintiffs lawyers, or class action lawsuits’ layers upon layers of lawyers upon lawyers.
Yeah, no conservative government would decide not to certify an attack, even though Bush did so. You are a disgusting partisan hack.
The only reply I have to that is …. burp!
Oh, wait! Maybe it was supposed to be ‘dur’?
PolarBear, I give your comment 10 likes.
Hmm. That makes me a little worried; you vote like a Democrat; i.e. early and often.