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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
258 | 상법 | 상가 렌트 관련 [1] | Psy1004 | 411 |
257 | 상법 | 식당 매매 관련하여 문의드립니다 [1] | jason123 | 335 |
256 | 상법 | 아파트 곰팡이관련 문의드립니다 [1] | mktiger | 407 |
255 | 상법 | 변호사 편지 [1] | rin | 211 |
254 | 상법 | 법인회사의 대표자 변경을 할수 있을까요? [1] | Eunice | 317 |
253 | 상법 | 새로 구입한 콘도 천장에 물이 샘으로 인한 곰팡이 [1] | barami | 209 |
252 | 상법 | 화장지에서 파리가 [1] | 만두 | 128 |
251 | 상법 | 공임 미지급건 [1] | tjsrma | 147 |
250 | 상법 | Car lease renewal [1] | nikita21c | 176 |
249 | 상법 | 비지니스를 샀는데, 전주인에게 속았습니다 [1] | jaba | 235 |
248 | 상법 | 친구 회사에 투자 후 문제 [1] | funeral1004 | 150 |
247 | 상법 | 프랜차이즈 제계약을 위한 상담 급!!! 입니다. [2] | 김서연 | 202 |
246 | 상법 | 건축업자와 관계. [1] | bionduien | 155 |
245 | 상법 | 동업, 스탁쉐어, 합의서 관련 질문 드립니다. [1] | 빅토리 | 807 |
244 | 상법 | 건축 중에 옆집 부동산 소유주와 딜을 해야 할 경우 [1] | bionduien | 150 |
243 | 상법 | 아래 변호사님 답변 감사합니다. [1] | bionduien | 168 |
242 | 상법 | 부동산 공동소유주 문제 [1] | TK | 171 |
241 | 상법 | 129번의글 TK입니다. [1] | TK | 316 |
240 | 상법 | 바로 밑에 페스트에 관한 추가 질문.. [1] | June | 185 |
239 | 상법 | 리스 차 리턴 후..생긴 일이.. [1] | hush5 | 431 |
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.