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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
398 | 상법 | 친구 회사에 투자 후 문제 [1] | funeral1004 | 150 |
397 | 상법 | 건축 중에 옆집 부동산 소유주와 딜을 해야 할 경우 [1] | bionduien | 150 |
396 | 부동산법 | 퇴거 당하게 생겼습니다. [1] | 민수 | 150 |
395 | 상법 | 리스에 관하여 [1] | JinLee | 151 |
394 | 민법 | 전세 보증금 일부 못 받았습니다 [1] | Lulumom | 151 |
393 | 부동산법 | Cannabis related business와 eviction에 대해서.. [1] | NB | 151 |
392 | 상법 | 상법 관련 문의 [1] | JuneK | 151 |
391 | 소송 | HOA 에게서 2년 넘게 정신적 학대 와 협박. 압박& 따돌림 [1] | Sanfrancisco | 152 |
390 | 부동산법 | AC fan 노이즈 문제 [1] | 래미안 | 152 |
389 | 민법 | 자동차 수리 [1] | Steven | 153 |
388 | 소송 | 민형사상의 소송 | chow | 154 |
387 | 상법 | 건축업자와 관계. [1] | bionduien | 155 |
386 | 상법 | 해외 구매 사기를 당했습니다. [1] | 륭륭이 | 155 |
385 | 소송 | 아파트 룸메때문에 계약해지를 못하고 있어요 [1] | Elaine | 155 |
384 | 기타 | 투자사기 [1] | nailm | 155 |
383 | 부동산법 | Co-signed apartment lease [1] | kyi0926 | 156 |
382 | 기타 | 사망한 어머니 카드빛 [1] | dirctorko | 156 |
381 | 상법 | LA 사업 계획 [1] | Joseph1234 | 156 |
380 | 소송 | 투자금 리턴 및 사기죄 [1] | HP | 157 |
379 | 상법 | abtract judgment 은 어떻게 신청하나요? [1] | beomdol | 158 |
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.