Last year, I noted a lawsuit filed in California that sought to determine whether the events in Gaza in 2014 -- specifically, rocket fire into Israel -- were part of a "war" or "terrorism". The lawsuit wasn't filed by a human rights NGO, or survivors of the violence, but rather came about in the most mundane possible fashion: an insurance dispute, where a policy excluded coverage for damage due to war, but covered damage due to terrorism.
Anyway, the district court has issued a ruling, and determined that the events in question were indeed a "war". Thanks, insurance industry, for providing helpful clarity on this issue!
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insurance. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Are Hamas Rockets "War" or "Terrorism"? Thanks To Insurance, We May Find Out
A lawsuit just filed in California federal district court seeks to determine whether Hamas rocket fire in 2014 is an act of "war" or "terrorism".
Was the suit filed by human rights advocates? Survivors of the violence? Maybe an international NGO?
Nope. It was filed by the USA network against its insurance company. You see, USA was filming a series in Israel that was interrupted due to the rocket fire. It claimed coverage under its policy, which was denied as the policy excluded losses stemming from "war or warlike action". But it does not exclude losses incurred due to terrorism, and the network contends that is the proper descriptor of Hamas' activities.
I have no legal commentary to provide -- I'm just darkly amused that this very important issue (as a rhetorical matter, if nothing else) may well gain legal resolution due to an insurance claim.
Was the suit filed by human rights advocates? Survivors of the violence? Maybe an international NGO?
Nope. It was filed by the USA network against its insurance company. You see, USA was filming a series in Israel that was interrupted due to the rocket fire. It claimed coverage under its policy, which was denied as the policy excluded losses stemming from "war or warlike action". But it does not exclude losses incurred due to terrorism, and the network contends that is the proper descriptor of Hamas' activities.
I have no legal commentary to provide -- I'm just darkly amused that this very important issue (as a rhetorical matter, if nothing else) may well gain legal resolution due to an insurance claim.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Random Thoughts on the Insurance Biz
Not, alas, particularly serious ones:
* I'm a bit amused by all those insurance ads that inform you that "customers who switch save an average of X dollars!" Well, sure -- the odds are that you're not going to switch if it costs more at the new place. Obviously, some people will do so for better service or coverage or whatever, but it is still a little misleading.
* That new State Farm ad where the guy is talking to State Farm at 3 AM and his wife thinks he's having an affair is pretty funny. But it also makes me hope State Farm has one of those screw-ups where there is a typo on one of their forms and their customers really are redirected to a phone sex line.
* Speaking of ads, why is it that insurance companies really seem to be near the cream of the crop in terms of putting out really entertaining, well-produced advertisements? Geico, State Farm, and Progressive all do a really good job, and if Allstate is less memorable, that's because it seems to have made a conscious choice to stake out the terrain as the serious, sober alternative to the other three (and from that vantage point, its ads are quite good as well).
* I'm a bit amused by all those insurance ads that inform you that "customers who switch save an average of X dollars!" Well, sure -- the odds are that you're not going to switch if it costs more at the new place. Obviously, some people will do so for better service or coverage or whatever, but it is still a little misleading.
* That new State Farm ad where the guy is talking to State Farm at 3 AM and his wife thinks he's having an affair is pretty funny. But it also makes me hope State Farm has one of those screw-ups where there is a typo on one of their forms and their customers really are redirected to a phone sex line.
* Speaking of ads, why is it that insurance companies really seem to be near the cream of the crop in terms of putting out really entertaining, well-produced advertisements? Geico, State Farm, and Progressive all do a really good job, and if Allstate is less memorable, that's because it seems to have made a conscious choice to stake out the terrain as the serious, sober alternative to the other three (and from that vantage point, its ads are quite good as well).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
