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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
408 | 소송 | 교통사고 관련 고소를 당햇는데요 [1] | wonder | 152 |
407 | 부동산법 | 비지니스 리뉴얼 문의 드립니다. [1] | Jjoseph | 152 |
406 | 부동산법 | 집주인의 일방적인 퇴거 통보 2 [1] | Maeng | 152 |
405 | 민법 | 자동차 수리 [1] | Steven | 153 |
404 | 부동산법 | 퇴거 당하게 생겼습니다. [1] | 민수 | 154 |
403 | 기타 | 렌트비 인상 [1] | jyla | 154 |
402 | 상법 | 리스에 관하여 [1] | JinLee | 155 |
401 | 부동산법 | 퇴거 소송 절차 [1] | Jessica | 155 |
400 | 부동산법 | 터마이트 [1] | soooo | 155 |
399 | 상법 | 상법 관련 문의 [1] | JuneK | 156 |
398 | 상법 | 친구 회사에 투자 후 문제 [1] | funeral1004 | 157 |
397 | 상법 | 해외 구매 사기를 당했습니다. [1] | 륭륭이 | 157 |
396 | 상법 | 건축 중에 옆집 부동산 소유주와 딜을 해야 할 경우 [1] | bionduien | 158 |
395 | 부동산법 | Cannabis related business와 eviction에 대해서.. [1] | NB | 158 |
394 | 부동산법 | 테넌츠 - 터마이트 [1] | hyejungbae | 158 |
393 | 기타 |
사망한 어머니 카드빛
[1] ![]() | dirctorko | 158 |
392 | 소송 | AT&T Branch False Advertisement 고소가 가능 한지 궁금합니다. [1] | henrykim0213 | 158 |
391 | 상법 | Commercial lease [1] | Cuzao | 158 |
390 | 소송 | 민형사상의 소송 | chow | 159 |
389 | 소송 |
투자금 리턴 및 사기죄
[1] ![]() | HP | 159 |
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.