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 | 상법 | HOA SUE 할수 있나요? [1] | youngkim | 3122 |
407 | 상법 | 디파짓 21 days [1] | ashixue | 149 |
406 | 상법 |
클린타이틀로 광고된 자동차가 사고보니 레몬바이백 타이틀이었을경우
[1] ![]() | 때구리 | 1405 |
405 | 상법 | 입국 가능 여부 문의드립니다. [1] | 녹두 | 123 |
404 | 상법 | Best Buy에서 냉장고를 구입했습니다. [1] | CharlesLee | 220 |
403 | 상법 | 리스에 관하여 [1] | JinLee | 155 |
402 | 상법 | 출발선은 언제나 똑같이... [1] | 마멜류 | 211 |
401 | 상법 | 비스니스 사기(?) 소송 [1] | altoids | 266 |
400 | 상법 | 미국비자(E2) 투자금 회수 관련 [1] | 다원 | 5473 |
399 | 상법 | 일을하다 쓰러젔는데... [1] | 오늘도내일 | 118 |
398 | 상법 | 가게에 불이 났어요, 제발 도와주세요. [1] | 해피고 | 3440 |
397 | 상법 | 윗집 공사소음 소송가능한가요? (콘도거주 세입자) [1] | Kate4019 | 3272 |
396 | 상법 | 해외 구매 사기를 당했습니다. [1] | 륭륭이 | 157 |
395 | 상법 | 대한항공 settlement payment을 주지 않습니다 [1] | shawnii | 434 |
394 | 상법 | 어떻게 린을 걸어요? [1] | beomdol | 367 |
393 | 상법 | abtract judgment 은 어떻게 신청하나요? [1] | beomdol | 160 |
392 | 상법 | 안녕하세요. | 미주 | 655 |
391 | 상법 | 계약불이행시 계약조건밑 판결 [1] | yellowtail | 195 |
390 | 상법 | 상표권분쟁 [1] | gobau | 384 |
» | 상법 | Employee Dishonesty Claim - Insurance [1] | Angela | 5205 |
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.