분류 | 상법 |
---|
Hello,
We have an Employee Dishonesty claim to make against our insurance company for a fraud case involving our (now former) employees. There are about 15 individuals who committed fraud against us, but the insurance company is grouping up the incidents as one occurrence and only willing to submit payment for only one occurrence. We believe that each case should be treated as own and not grouped together, as the employees were not working together, but worked alone and in different times / locations to obtain personal benefits at the cost of the company. Our insurance company is fighting back on this stating that this is on their policy:
d. All loss or damage:
(1) Caused by one or more persons; or
(2) Involving a single act or series of acts;
is considered one occurrence.
Our question is, how is it even determined whether something is considered one occurrence or not? The language is very unclear and vague and could possibly mean anything can be grouped under one occurrence. We would like to see is there's a possibility of fighting this and winning the case if we were to take legal action and hire a lawyer.
Thank you!
번호 | 분류 | 제목 | 글쓴이 | 조회 수 |
---|---|---|---|---|
29 | 부동산법 | 렌트만기 [1] | grace | 1737 |
28 | 부동산법 | 3units 중 한 유닛 lease [1] | Anna | 1777 |
27 | 기타 | 토렌트 다운로드 [1] | jayjeong | 1812 |
26 | 소송 | RETAINER AGREEMENT [1] | Yoonsam | 2059 |
25 | 부동산법 | 리스 계약을 취소해주겠다고 하였으나.. [1] | aol | 2455 |
24 | 상법 | 자동차 매매 사기를 당했습니다. [1] | dmendys | 2675 |
23 | 부동산법 | 집 렌트관련 문의 드립니다 [1] | Osushi | 2776 |
22 | 상법 | 변호사님 confidentiality agreement 관련하여 질문이 있습니다! [1] | junning87 | 2939 |
21 | 기타 | common wall 시공에 대한 notice를 받았습니다. [1] | 제인 | 3014 |
20 | 상법 | HOA SUE 할수 있나요? [1] | youngkim | 3122 |
19 | 상법 | 윗집 공사소음 소송가능한가요? (콘도거주 세입자) [1] | Kate4019 | 3272 |
18 | 상법 | 가게에 불이 났어요, 제발 도와주세요. [1] | 해피고 | 3440 |
17 | 소송 | 받지 못한돈관련 문의사항 [1] | soyeon | 3443 |
16 | 상법 | 알고 싶습니다 [1] | Umchu | 4198 |
15 | 소송 | Credit Card - Motion_Second [1] | 재성 | 4418 |
14 | 부동산법 | 집 렌트관련 문의사항. [1] | 미니유리 | 4737 |
13 | 부동산법 | Airbnb [1] | DL | 4835 |
» | 상법 | Employee Dishonesty Claim - Insurance [1] | Angela | 5205 |
11 | 상법 | 미국비자(E2) 투자금 회수 관련 [1] | 다원 | 5473 |
10 | 상법 | Trust bank 에 대해 궁금합니다 [1] | Mathew | 7196 |
In responding to your inquiry, please be advised that the attorney must have an opportunity to review the coverage policy to answer to your question. Generally, the coverage policy should define the terms used in the coverage. Yes, I agree with you that many cases the terms and the wordings used are ambiguous. That is why you need to hire an attorney who specializes in reviewing the insurance policy.
You can probably find a qualified attorney through online research. Sorry I am not able to assist you much.
Good luck to you.