| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 408 | 상법 | 129번의글 TK입니다. [1] | TK | 286 |
| 407 | 상법 | 바로 밑에 페스트에 관한 추가 질문.. [1] | June | 141 |
| 406 | 상법 | 리스 차 리턴 후..생긴 일이.. [1] | hush5 | 388 |
| 405 | 상법 | 업체 인수시 이런 경우는 어떻게 대쳐해야 하나요? [1] | BlueSky0078 | 140 |
| 404 | 상법 | 동업을 그만 할수 있는 방법을 알고 싶습니다. [1] | 뉴요컹 | 832 |
| 403 | 상법 | 수금을 못받고 있는경우... [1] | APLUS친구 | 173 |
| 402 | 상법 | 건축사와 엔지니어의 도면 문제. [1] | bionduien | 327 |
| 401 | 상법 | 유학원통해 연수갔다가 베드버그 피해입었는데 1년됐다고 해줄수없답니다 어떻게해야하나요? [1] | 유진김 | 529 |
| 400 | 상법 | 리스양도후 문제 입니다 [1] | Roy | 157 |
| 399 | 상법 | lline을 걸었는데 답답하네요 [1] | soo | 189 |
| 398 | 상법 | 파트너쉽 관련 [1] | Andy | 139 |
| 397 | 상법 | Do I have a case? [1] | angelsunny | 16811 |
| 396 | 상법 | 머천 크레딧 카드 Charge Back [1] | 데이얼 | 719 |
| 395 | 상법 | 아파트 바퀴벌레로 인한 계약 파기 [1] | 엘레이공부 | 1219 |
| 394 | 상법 | 권리금 유효기간 [1] | 유진김 | 156 |
| 393 | 상법 | Department of Building & Safty issue [1] | misonlee | 165 |
| 392 | 상법 | 집문제를 어떻게 해야 할까요? [1] | gardentree310 | 711 |
| 391 | 상법 | HOA SUE 할수 있나요? [1] | youngkim | 3082 |
| 390 | 상법 | 디파짓 21 days [1] | ashixue | 102 |
| 389 | 상법 |
클린타이틀로 광고된 자동차가 사고보니 레몬바이백 타이틀이었을경우
[1]  | 때구리 | 1352 |
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.