Attorneys Fear Church Insurers Could Tangle Southern California Settlements

By | July 26, 2004

  • July 26, 2004 at 4:46 am
    Wayne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Call me skeptical, but the byline says “By Gillian Flaccus”, but this is an AP article that was posted on dozens of other news sites. Does Gillian work for the AP and did he write it? I noticed the AP copyright at the end, doesn’t seem to match. Unless “By” means “Posted By” these days…

    Anyways, this article is SOP. The contract probably reads: “Insurer indemnifies Client if and only if Insurer controls defense of third party claim.

    So what gives? This is a no-brainer. Plus “Client” engaged in mass child rape. Illegal activities are not insured.

    What the hoot? No insurance company would insure ME or YOU for criminal activity.

  • July 27, 2004 at 12:54 pm
    Cheri says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Does the church think they have an open check book from the insurers? People in the church committed crimes!!! against innocent people. Why should the insurers pay for their crimes? Breach of contract. Yes…. Sure the church will agree to pay amounts they think is right. Maybe they should consult with the carriers first. Maybe they should go after the assets of those who can not keep their pants zipped.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*