PS- after the owners of those buildings admit to the building testing positive, their sick customers can sue them for negligence. See how this game is played?
PS- anyone notice who actually gets rich in this? Attorneys, and I think attorneys wrote the policy language to begin with.
Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’ means that when you lie or act dishonestly you are initiating problems and a domino structure of complications which eventually run out of control.
Sounds good – and if the building tested positive, what’s the remedy? Spray it with some Lysol – there, no physical damage anymore. Unfortunately, a court will have to determine what this judge failed to do – recognize that the businesses were not closed due to physical loss or damage, they were closed out of fear among politicians. And that’s just not covered in the policy.
Was the premises tested to see if the virus was on any surfaces within the structure. A shutdown does not constitute direct physical damage within most parameters.
This is a long shot and often times, they hope the insurer will settle before going to court. These very same people would have more than likely rejected paying more to get this coverage My question to anyone who sues is, you didn’t care to buy EPLI insurance nor cyber coverage, I assure you that would you would have also not paid for coverage to be protected from viruses. Didn’t you say “that is not going to happen to me?”
We need to be a little fair to the insureds here. A pandemic is a lot worse than a cyber attack or EPLI. There was no pricing from actuaries here and you couldn’t even buy insurance for what happened. It is the moral obligation for insurance companies to provide insurance for future events that couldn’t possibly be foreseen . Sounds stupid, right? Well, the insured was just as surprised and the carriers. They exclude something that is now a great pandemic instead of pricing the coverage and giving the insured the opportunity to say no.. That will be the difference in a jury’s mind if it gets that far.
You just contracted yourself. First you said is very hard to price, then you said the insurance companies should give them that option. Well if you have been in this industry for a little more than a few years, you would know the high risk hard to price coverages are more often than not done through surplus lines. Surplus lines coverages are not as easy as saying “do you want this, it’s $5500 more”? Also you are right, it’s higher risk and would cost more, so this is a great reason why if an insured said no to EPLI or cyber, they will more than likely say no to this.
The contradiction was a thesis ending with a question mark. I was being facetious. I have been doing this for 33 years and the Jury’s almost always go against insurance carriers… I am using the stance as a Jurist not an insurance advisor. I am playing devils advocate to put it simply. Carriers are now offering coverage which does not bode well with your answer. It also will not go well with a jury either. Offering coverage now but not before?
Progressive did well on that nonstandard business..(E&S) Remember the business they write use to be pool business.
Then let them say no, but at least it was offered.
I am holding class Mr. Agency so get your tuition in early because you were just schooled my friend..
Actually, yes, there were pandemic insurance programs around. No one was interested in purchasing the coverage. Now they want to be covered for something they didn’t purchase.
Do you have a signed statement that you offered it to your client? If not then they may come after you. I got rich in this business by thinking like a lawyer. I protect my clients from lawyers so you better start thinking like one if your going to do very well.
This is the correct answer right here. After attorneys lose a few more cases against insurers, the lawsuits against the agents will pick up speed. The fact that there was pandemic coverage available in the marketplace is the killer. Did you offer pandemic coverage to your clients? Can you prove it? You present yourself as a Risk Management expert but didn’t inform your clients about this. They relied on your expertise and surely would have purchased the coverage if you had recommended it. Seems like a simple E&O claim.
Better try to lock in higher E&O limits early this year.
August 12, 2020 at 5:54 pm
martin says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Many people posting the other day were a little ignorant when trying to decipher what jury’s will do to insurance companies as opposed to how the policy verbiage stands. Excellent lawyers make a lot of money because they know how to argue anything in front of a Jury. If it goes that far.
This lawsuit is focusing on carriers the did not have the exclusion in place – Cincinnati, Lloyds.
The courts have upheld other cases where the contract was in place prior to the event.
Only the buildings that tested positive should be able to make that claim. What say you?
PS- after the owners of those buildings admit to the building testing positive, their sick customers can sue them for negligence. See how this game is played?
PS- when those customers sue the business, their neighbors find out they got the virus from them and they sue their neighbors. Are we done yet?
PS- anyone notice who actually gets rich in this? Attorneys, and I think attorneys wrote the policy language to begin with.
Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’ means that when you lie or act dishonestly you are initiating problems and a domino structure of complications which eventually run out of control.
Sounds good – and if the building tested positive, what’s the remedy? Spray it with some Lysol – there, no physical damage anymore. Unfortunately, a court will have to determine what this judge failed to do – recognize that the businesses were not closed due to physical loss or damage, they were closed out of fear among politicians. And that’s just not covered in the policy.
Was the premises tested to see if the virus was on any surfaces within the structure. A shutdown does not constitute direct physical damage within most parameters.
This is a long shot and often times, they hope the insurer will settle before going to court. These very same people would have more than likely rejected paying more to get this coverage My question to anyone who sues is, you didn’t care to buy EPLI insurance nor cyber coverage, I assure you that would you would have also not paid for coverage to be protected from viruses. Didn’t you say “that is not going to happen to me?”
Agency- kinda like people in X flood zones that don’t buy flood insurance.
We need to be a little fair to the insureds here. A pandemic is a lot worse than a cyber attack or EPLI. There was no pricing from actuaries here and you couldn’t even buy insurance for what happened. It is the moral obligation for insurance companies to provide insurance for future events that couldn’t possibly be foreseen . Sounds stupid, right? Well, the insured was just as surprised and the carriers. They exclude something that is now a great pandemic instead of pricing the coverage and giving the insured the opportunity to say no.. That will be the difference in a jury’s mind if it gets that far.
You just contracted yourself. First you said is very hard to price, then you said the insurance companies should give them that option. Well if you have been in this industry for a little more than a few years, you would know the high risk hard to price coverages are more often than not done through surplus lines. Surplus lines coverages are not as easy as saying “do you want this, it’s $5500 more”? Also you are right, it’s higher risk and would cost more, so this is a great reason why if an insured said no to EPLI or cyber, they will more than likely say no to this.
The contradiction was a thesis ending with a question mark. I was being facetious. I have been doing this for 33 years and the Jury’s almost always go against insurance carriers… I am using the stance as a Jurist not an insurance advisor. I am playing devils advocate to put it simply. Carriers are now offering coverage which does not bode well with your answer. It also will not go well with a jury either. Offering coverage now but not before?
Progressive did well on that nonstandard business..(E&S) Remember the business they write use to be pool business.
Then let them say no, but at least it was offered.
I am holding class Mr. Agency so get your tuition in early because you were just schooled my friend..
Actually, yes, there were pandemic insurance programs around. No one was interested in purchasing the coverage. Now they want to be covered for something they didn’t purchase.
Do you have a signed statement that you offered it to your client? If not then they may come after you. I got rich in this business by thinking like a lawyer. I protect my clients from lawyers so you better start thinking like one if your going to do very well.
This is the correct answer right here. After attorneys lose a few more cases against insurers, the lawsuits against the agents will pick up speed. The fact that there was pandemic coverage available in the marketplace is the killer. Did you offer pandemic coverage to your clients? Can you prove it? You present yourself as a Risk Management expert but didn’t inform your clients about this. They relied on your expertise and surely would have purchased the coverage if you had recommended it. Seems like a simple E&O claim.
Better try to lock in higher E&O limits early this year.
Many people posting the other day were a little ignorant when trying to decipher what jury’s will do to insurance companies as opposed to how the policy verbiage stands. Excellent lawyers make a lot of money because they know how to argue anything in front of a Jury. If it goes that far.
You’re correct, but the appeals process doesn’t involve a jury.
It involves Jurists which can be worse. We’ll see.
This lawsuit is focusing on carriers the did not have the exclusion in place – Cincinnati, Lloyds.
The courts have upheld other cases where the contract was in place prior to the event.
I wonder if the proceedings will take place via Zoom?