| 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 | 상법 | 아래 변호사님 답변 감사합니다. [1] | bionduien | 168 |
| 217 | 부동산법 | HOA 횡포 & 사기 [1] | JS | 167 |
| 216 | 상법 | 실소유주가 아닌 회사에 관한 책임 [1] | chang | 167 |
| 215 | 민법 | 건물주와의 법적문제 그리고 Eviction 소송의 관하여 [1] | JayAntonioLee | 165 |
| 214 | 상법 | Correction Notice from LADBS [1] | wiseguy | 165 |
| 213 | 민법 | 호텔에서 체크인도 못하고 쫏겨났습니다. [1] | ojkevin | 164 |
| 212 | 부동산법 | 정확한 저의 대응방법을 알고 싶습니다. | Moon | 164 |
| 211 | 부동산법 | 아파트렌트 펫피 매니저 사기 고소 [1] | 준석 | 163 |
| 210 | 부동산법 | 주거용 아파트 임대 계약 관련 질문 [1] | iulius36 | 162 |
| 209 | 상법 | 다른 회사가 이미 쓰고 있는 상품명을 상품의 분야가 전혀 다른곳에서 쓸수 있는지요? [1] | minjoo | 162 |
| 208 | 부동산법 | 안녕하세요, 아래 Kay입니다. [1] | Kay | 162 |
| 207 | 부동산법 | 룸서브리스 계약 [1] | Ohj | 161 |
| 206 | 기타 | 사문서 위조 [1] | SuperStar | 160 |
| 205 | 부동산법 | 아파트 Mold 이슈 [1] | SC | 160 |
| 204 | 민법 | 아파트 렌탈과정중 계약파기 [1] | mint | 160 |
| 203 | 기타 | 공사대금이 다갔는데 화이널 공사를 안해줍니다.. [1] | boa | 160 |
| 202 | 부동산법 | 계약파기 및 주거침입 [1] | Wakawaka | 159 |
| 201 | 부동산법 | 랜드로드 태넌트 분쟁 [1] | kang1545 | 158 |
| 200 | 상법 | abtract judgment 은 어떻게 신청하나요? [1] | beomdol | 158 |
| 199 | 소송 |
투자금 리턴 및 사기죄
[1]  | HP | 157 |
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.