The NJ bill was pulled from voting. What was most challenging about that bill was that it was going to force insureds to pay even when BI coverage was not written on the account.
Restaurant closures at the direction of a civil authority are for the purpose of reducing the potential of the spread of disease from person to person, or person to surface to person, not because of any actual contamination of surfaces. Even if there is actual contamination of surfaces, those surfaces could be disinfected well before any waiting period could run its full course. Restaurants are supposed to clean and disinfect surfaces on a regular basis.
The New Jersey legislation is dead, thankfully. But several insurance departments in the US that are hostile to insurers are examining whether they can somehow capitalize on the concepts from the NJ bill. Also, the litigation is interesting in New Orleans and in reading the news release from the law firm, its full of hyperbole. They are just looking for a settlement of some sorts and it wouldn’t eventually surprise me if lawsuit lending isn’t a factor in this.
How could the P&C industry feel any loss or change to operating when they didn’t expect to pay claims of this sort in the first place? I am not sure governmental bodies gave business insurance policies a thought when making these decisions. Perhaps the decision makers thought coverage would apply for the masses vs. the other way around.
The insurance industry should step in an play a role in figuring out a way to pay a portion of BI claims by simply changing their terms for a specific period of time, say 30, 60 or 90 days. The industry is already equipped to handle and adjust claims which would take this off the backs of government where we all will pay in the end. Perhaps the government will reimburse portions to insurance companies who pay claims where none were intended to be paid. An out of the box idea would be warranted here for the good of the order.
NO P&C insurer, specialty or other, should pay BI claims if the contract says it is not covered.
It is irrelevant how many people are infected or die. It is irrelevant how much money businesses lose.
I sincerely hope the insurers fight these claims all the way to the SCOTUS.
If the contract language states that pandemics are not covered, than they are not covered.
The NJ bill was pulled from voting. What was most challenging about that bill was that it was going to force insureds to pay even when BI coverage was not written on the account.
And here we go….
Restaurant closures at the direction of a civil authority are for the purpose of reducing the potential of the spread of disease from person to person, or person to surface to person, not because of any actual contamination of surfaces. Even if there is actual contamination of surfaces, those surfaces could be disinfected well before any waiting period could run its full course. Restaurants are supposed to clean and disinfect surfaces on a regular basis.
The New Jersey legislation is dead, thankfully. But several insurance departments in the US that are hostile to insurers are examining whether they can somehow capitalize on the concepts from the NJ bill. Also, the litigation is interesting in New Orleans and in reading the news release from the law firm, its full of hyperbole. They are just looking for a settlement of some sorts and it wouldn’t eventually surprise me if lawsuit lending isn’t a factor in this.
How could the P&C industry feel any loss or change to operating when they didn’t expect to pay claims of this sort in the first place? I am not sure governmental bodies gave business insurance policies a thought when making these decisions. Perhaps the decision makers thought coverage would apply for the masses vs. the other way around.
The insurance industry should step in an play a role in figuring out a way to pay a portion of BI claims by simply changing their terms for a specific period of time, say 30, 60 or 90 days. The industry is already equipped to handle and adjust claims which would take this off the backs of government where we all will pay in the end. Perhaps the government will reimburse portions to insurance companies who pay claims where none were intended to be paid. An out of the box idea would be warranted here for the good of the order.