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 |
---|---|---|---|---|
218 | 부동산법 | HOA의 횡포 [1] | ttj | 49064 |
217 | 부동산법 | 강아지- 테넌트 [1] | sseuri | 706 |
216 | 부동산법 | 세입자인데 집에 물이 세어 공사중입니다. [1] | fusion24d | 244 |
215 | 부동산법 | Housing rent Lease에 관한 질문입니다. [1] | Ondal | 184 |
214 | 부동산법 | 공동 계약자와의 갈등 [1] | eem | 212 |
213 | 부동산법 | 부동산 관련 문의 [1] | 산해 | 209 |
212 | 부동산법 | HOA 반장의 권한 [1] | GIRL | 16861 |
211 | 부동산법 | 아파트 [1] | 유진맘 | 1382 |
210 | 부동산법 | 아파트에 쥐가 나와요 [1] | 아이린 | 586 |
209 | 부동산법 | 아이 아파트 화재 [1] | Julie11 | 109 |
208 | 부동산법 | 렌트 컨트롤 대상 아파트가 아니라면.. [1] | Ashley | 703 |
207 | 부동산법 | 새로이사하는 아파트구요. 도대체 이법이 맞는건지 억지인지 여쭈어 봅니다 [1] | Hakilove | 211 |
206 | 부동산법 | 리스 계약이 끝난 집주인이 수리비 청구 [1] | 김혁 | 219 |
205 | 부동산법 | 소송 가능한가요? [1] | miki | 202 |
204 | 부동산법 | 디파짓관련 [1] | jaden | 123 |
203 | 부동산법 | water leak after escrow [1] | sseuri | 123 |
202 | 부동산법 | 아파트 Mold 이슈 [1] | SC | 160 |
201 | 부동산법 | 렌트계약파기 [1] | 선비1 | 280 |
200 | 부동산법 | 아파트 렌트 [1] | 보라 | 211 |
199 | 부동산법 | 렌트만기 [1] | grace | 1735 |
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.