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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
578 | 기타 | 안녕하세요 변호사님 [1] | xglitchx | 17 |
577 | 민법 | sublease/space sharing [1] | sublee | 20 |
576 | 기타 | 집주인의 괴롭힘 [1] | faithCho | 22 |
575 | 민법 | Re:onilin shopping refund [1] | JKim | 53 |
574 | 상법 | 온라인으로 구입한 상품의 결함(한국 거주) [1] | Bluesky | 58 |
573 | 민법 | Online shopping refund [1] | JKim | 66 |
572 | 부동산법 | 부동산 워런티 문제 | monky | 72 |
571 | 상법 | 채권 추심 방법 관련 문의드립니다 [1] | soon | 72 |
570 | 기타 | 온라인컨설팅, 지적재산권 상담부탁드립니다. [1] | JJJ | 77 |
569 | 부동산법 | 부동산 소유권 [1] | AKK | 77 |
568 | 민법 | 대리운전 사고 [1] | 디박 | 77 |
567 | 기타 | 시험 Cancel [1] | PPPwwe | 78 |
566 | 상법 | 아피트 연체료 면제요청 | Jy | 78 |
565 | 부동산법 | 아파트 렌트비 문제입니다. [2] | Sandy | 79 |
564 | 소송 | 자동차 화재 사고 처리 문의 드립니다. [1] | shinee | 80 |
563 | 민법 | 싸인하지 않은 계약서와 계약금 상환 요구 | swh1212 | 82 |
562 | 상법 | 소송관련 질문입니다. | 오딧쎄이 | 83 |
561 | 부동산법 | 작년 12월부터 살지않는 아파트 월세 계속 내야 될까요? | Ronnie777 | 83 |
560 | 상법 | Ebay 관련 문제 [1] | HA | 85 |
559 | 부동산법 | 아랫 두 글 [1] | Ocmom | 85 |
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.