It’s refreshing to hear such common sense rulings, and affirm that PHYSICAL PROPERTY damage needs to have occurred for the BI to be activated.
It is also reasuring that the judges are not giving an unintendedly broad definition to the BI coverage, which would alter what the original intent, underwriting, and resulting pricing had established.
Okay, but I still haven’t seen “some on this forum that want all claims paid no matter what the policy language says.” Can you or Agent put a name of someone who posts here who have made such a claim?
It’s refreshing to hear such common sense rulings, and affirm that PHYSICAL PROPERTY damage needs to have occurred for the BI to be activated.
It is also reasuring that the judges are not giving an unintendedly broad definition to the BI coverage, which would alter what the original intent, underwriting, and resulting pricing had established.
John V, there are some on this forum that want all claims paid no matter what the policy language says.
I don’t believe you.
Name someone here who has advocated for that.
What? Who has ever said anything like that??
Those people would be Public adjusters and the BAR Association
Woah, not me.
Okay, but I still haven’t seen “some on this forum that want all claims paid no matter what the policy language says.” Can you or Agent put a name of someone who posts here who have made such a claim?
Well, I didn’t say that. And I disagree with Agent on it.
So…I’m not sure what you want me to say.