Classmate one: Camacho I am in agreement with the insurance company. This was a coordinated attack that
Question:
Classmate one: Camacho
I am in agreement with the insurance company. This was a coordinated attack that consisted of using two planes to hit the towers and thus falls into the definition of a series of similar causes and should be treated as one incident. My thinking if one car hits you and then causes another car to hit you the two accidents would be considered as a series of similar incidents. Or if a fire occurred in the house and in some crazy way caused the pipes to burst flooding your basement, now you have both fire and flood damage would should be two separate incidents. But based on the insurance company had the wording of the coverage interpretation left this incident up for debate.
The definition of occurrence, specifically the words underlined, "all losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or one series of similar causes" and that "all such losses will be added together and the total amount of such losses will be treated as one occurrence irrespective of the period of time or area over which such losses occur." Describes as if anything happened in relation to the incident, regardless if more damage occurred after a long time will be considered as one incident. This is why the leaseholder is justified in their case. The ruling against the holder is because these two planes hit two different towers and are considered to be two separate causes.
Ethically I think the ruling that passed was fair. I am glad that they came to a settlement outside of court and that this incident caused insurance companies to take more responsibility on their parts. Now there is an urgency to make sure wording is clarified and the policies should be settled quickly in a 30 day time frame. As it was said in the article insurance is in the business of keeping promises and holding their words and being accountable for that should be high priority.
Classmate two: Torrens
I agree with the second cases verdict. The justification for the first ruling was because of how the insurance contract was worded. The justification for the second ruling was because of how the temporary insurance agreements were defined. I believe that each ruling is ethical because of the circumstances in which they represent. The first representing how the documents were drafted and agreed to by the leaseholder. The second because of the definition of the temporary insurance agreements that bound the insurers. In each instance, the parties were adhering to the rules and regulations that were put in place. While massive loss is terrible, there are rules and regulations in place for these circumstances and insurance companies cannot make exceptions.
Respond to these two discussion post (I agree with you, that's an interesting thought,ex...)