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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
229 | 기타 | 아파트 매니져 관련 [1] | AndyH | 173 |
228 | 부동산법 | Co-signed apartment lease [1] | kyi0926 | 173 |
227 | 민법 | 건물주와의 법적문제 그리고 Eviction 소송의 관하여 [1] | JayAntonioLee | 172 |
226 | 부동산법 | HOA 횡포 & 사기 [1] | JS | 172 |
225 | 민법 | 옆집주인이 보상해줄 생각을 안해요 [1] | 억울 | 172 |
224 | 부동산법 | 정확한 저의 대응방법을 알고 싶습니다. | Moon | 172 |
223 | 부동산법 | 룸서브리스 계약 [1] | Ohj | 171 |
222 | 상법 | Correction Notice from LADBS [1] | wiseguy | 171 |
221 | 민법 | 명예훼손 소송 [1] | eunice77 | 170 |
220 | 부동산법 | 아파트 렌트기간 파기 [1] | nugurado | 170 |
219 | 부동산법 |
AC fan 노이즈 문제
[1] ![]() | 래미안 | 169 |
218 | 민법 | 호텔에서 체크인도 못하고 쫏겨났습니다. [1] | ojkevin | 168 |
217 | 상법 | 실소유주가 아닌 회사에 관한 책임 [1] | chang | 168 |
216 | 부동산법 | 안녕하세요, 아래 Kay입니다. [1] | Kay | 167 |
215 | 기타 | 공사대금이 다갔는데 화이널 공사를 안해줍니다.. [1] | boa | 166 |
214 | 상법 | LA 사업 계획 [1] | Joseph1234 | 165 |
213 | 소송 | HOA 에게서 2년 넘게 정신적 학대 와 협박. 압박& 따돌림 [1] | Sanfrancisco | 165 |
212 | 소송 |
불법 견인
[1] ![]() | Danielcy | 163 |
211 | 민법 | 아파트 렌탈과정중 계약파기 [1] | mint | 163 |
210 | 부동산법 | 주거용 아파트 임대 계약 관련 질문 [1] | iulius36 | 163 |
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.