| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 249 | 부동산법 | purchase home sellers not disclose solar [1] | cris | 110 |
| 248 | 상법 | 집주인과 에이전트의 사생활 침해에 대한 법적 조언을 부탁드립니다. [1] | kim | 147 |
| 247 | 민법 | 각서가 민사소송시 법적효력이 있나요? [1] | 누렁 | 358 |
| » | 상법 | Employee Dishonesty Claim - Insurance [1] | Angela | 5112 |
| 245 | 부동산법 | 임대 재계약 관련해서 조언 구합니다 [1] | 태지비트 | 102 |
| 244 | 부동산법 | 30일 termination letter [1] | Harry | 413 |
| 243 | 기타 | 공사대금이 다갔는데 화이널 공사를 안해줍니다.. [1] | boa | 143 |
| 242 | 상법 | 상표권분쟁 [1] | gobau | 341 |
| 241 | 민법 | 변호사님, 시큐리티 디파짓을 안돌려주겠다고 합니다. [1] | Kathy | 235 |
| 240 | 민법 |
딜리버리를 시켰는데 음식에서 벌레가 나왔습니다.
[1]  | ray | 173 |
| 239 | 부동산법 | annual reconciliation 명목으로 비용 [1] | Thomas | 106 |
| 238 | 부동산법 | 물난리가 나서 이층에서만 산경우에 렌트비를 100프로 다 지불해야하나요? [1] | Clarajung | 185 |
| 237 | 상법 | 계약불이행시 계약조건밑 판결 [1] | yellowtail | 171 |
| 236 | 부동산법 | 식당에 불 [1] | countryboy | 107 |
| 235 | 기타 | 아르바이트를 하다가 손님에게 폭행을 당했습니다. [1] | naiaro | 174 |
| 234 | 기타 | California 주에서 온라인 게임 사이트 개설 문의. [1] | 최수한 | 1702 |
| 233 | 민법 | 렌로드가 디파짓을 돌려주지 않습니다. [1] | AndyS | 242 |
| 232 | 민법 | Notice to move out [1] | minpark | 1008 |
| 231 | 부동산법 | 매매및 퇴거 [1] | songkim499 | 182 |
| 230 | 민법 | 디파짓 관련 질문입니다. [1] | 박성현 | 267 |
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.