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 | 부동산법 | 집주인의 일방적인 제계약 조건 [1] | Maeng | 189 |
257 | 상법 | 집주인과 에이전트의 사생활 침해에 대한 법적 조언을 부탁드립니다. [1] | kim | 189 |
256 | 상법 | 권리금 유효기간 [1] | 유진김 | 189 |
255 | 부동산법 | 렌트비 [1] | 조선의국밥 | 188 |
254 | 상법 | 다운타운에서 공장 리스중입니다. [1] | June oh | 187 |
253 | 부동산법 | 화장실 공사기간 동안 어떤 렌트 보호를 받을 수 있나요 [1] | Romi | 186 |
252 | 소송 | 매매계약 [1] | 유진김 | 186 |
251 | 상법 | 개인주택 랜트 관련 Eviction에 관한 문의 [1] | kjkworld21 | 185 |
250 | 부동산법 | 렌트컨트롤 [1] | Kathy | 185 |
249 | 상법 | 바로 밑에 페스트에 관한 추가 질문.. [1] | June | 185 |
248 | 부동산법 | 콘도 바이어의 집 수리 요구 [1] | maya | 185 |
247 | 기타 | Small Claim [1] | charley | 184 |
246 | 부동산법 | 계약서 도움주시면 감사하겠습니다.( 입주자가 계약을 안합니다.) [1] | shelly | 184 |
245 | 부동산법 | 월세집 곰팡이 때문에 문의드립니다 [1] | 빈맘 | 184 |
244 | 부동산법 | Housing rent Lease에 관한 질문입니다. [1] | Ondal | 184 |
243 | 상법 | 업체 인수시 이런 경우는 어떻게 대쳐해야 하나요? [1] | BlueSky0078 | 184 |
242 | 상법 | 미국 입국시 문제가 될 과거... [1] | YongKim | 182 |
241 | 상법 | 파트너쉽 관련 [1] | Andy | 182 |
240 | 소송 | 불법임대로 인한 무과실 퇴거 [1] | neo | 181 |
239 | 상법 | 새 아파트 계약과 관련하여, 변호사님께 질문 드리고 싶습니다. [1] | ASSC | 181 |
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.