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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
226 | 기타 | 스몰 클레임 작성 중 궁금 사항 [1] | blue12 | 272 |
225 | 소송 | 해결돼지않는 페스트 컨트롤로 인한 계약 파기 [1] | June | 273 |
224 | 기타 | 회사 관련 보험비 문제 [1] | Andie | 274 |
223 | 소송 | criminal case 관련 질문 [1] | koko | 275 |
222 | 부동산법 | 상가 건물 서브리스 [1] | bottari | 275 |
221 | 부동산법 | 포클로져한 집 deed of trust가 아직 제이름으로 되어있어요 [1] | Mary | 276 |
220 | 기타 | 렌트 사기 관련 질문 [1] | Hayven | 277 |
219 | 상법 | 디자인 도용 [1] | Jay | 278 |
218 | 민법 | 렌로드가 디파짓을 돌려주지 않습니다. [1] | AndyS | 280 |
217 | 부동산법 | 렌트계약파기 [1] | 선비1 | 282 |
216 | 소송 | 보행중 다른 행인과 충돌사고 [1] | mar | 287 |
215 | 민법 | Small clailm 소액재판 [1] | penn46 | 287 |
214 | 부동산법 | 아파트 내에 생긴 곰팡이 문제 [1] | Sk | 287 |
213 | 부동산법 | Notice of unlawful detainer trial 레터 받았습니다 [1] | Bo | 291 |
212 | 민법 | 아파트 무브 아웃 청구비 [1] | Nuke | 293 |
211 | 민법 | 디파짓 관련 질문입니다. [1] | 박성현 | 294 |
210 | 소송 | 건물주 상대 소송 변호사 비용 [1] | Mindy | 296 |
209 | 부동산법 | 랜트비를 보냈는데 3데이노티스를 받았습니다 | starfish | 299 |
208 | 소송 | 소송하면 거의 이길 확률이 클까요? [1] | Roy | 300 |
207 | 기타 | conflict of interest 문제 [1] | 엔지니어 | 302 |
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.