Despite the fact that there has never been any corroborated truth of the existence of any deity, why is it then that some insurance companies still try to fall back on the "ACT OF GOD" clause?
I once held a house insurance policy with Lloyd's Bank, they are an English bank founded in 1765 and one of those which had to be bailed out in 2010 when the financial crisis which was caused by the financial industry resulted in AUSTERITY MEASURES being imposed on Britain.
Anyway, I had cause to claim for roof damage after a storm and the insurance company tried to fall back on the ACT OF GOD clause but when I threatened legal action in the British courts, they backed down and paid up in full, in fact they overpaid but hey, that isn't the issue here.
Whenever you are faced with an ACT OF GOD situation then I advise you to fight because until there is definitive proof of the existence of any deity, the insurance industry is obliged to pay out in the event of a valid claim that would otherwise be subject to the ACT OF GOD clause.
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
10 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
it's just language. it has a specific meaning and it usually refers to nature, not deities. when i hit my toe and yell "oh shit" i am not deluded into thinking i have encountered a pile of poop, nor am i trying to direct anyone to defecate; if i hear about something awful and i say "jesus" i am not invoking that likely fictional character who has at any rate never been a part of my life. "act of god" doesn't offend me either. if the company tried to make this in some way literal, that would be different. it quite obviously isn't meant to be taken literally.
g
genessa
Level 8
June 16, 2019
1
I've seen that on warranty cards in the us. Insurance companies will try to get out of any claim. They are designed to fuck you. I had a crop insurance claim a few years ago. Totally legit. Finally paid about half of what I should have got. My premium was about 30k a year. They want their money upfront, but when you have a claim, it takes damnation and a day to get a penny.
TheGreatShadow
Level 9
June 16, 2019
1
I was under the impression that this was just their catch all term for extrinsic/natural causes, ie certain policies are meant only to cover accidents where a human being is at fault. They try to put in fine print so that you’d have to buy multiple types of insurance. Homeowners insurance can get away with not covering lightning strikes, floods, tornadoes and tropical storms, car insurance can sell you a separate type of insurance for floods etc. It’s poor semantics that you can argue down, but if they have their meaning explicitly defined in the contract to spell out these differences I doubt there’s anything you can do about it in the US at least. The legal issue isn’t about the existence of god, it’s about the existence of problems that humans didn’t cause.
Wurlitzer
Level 8
June 16, 2019
0
Just goes to show that even God is not above the law. Slightly encouraging that its grip is loosening.
You wouldn’t have achieved that ruling 30 years ago!
Geoffrey51
Level 8
June 16, 2019
2
I would be very shocked if the actual legal contract had “act of god” without specifying that it simply means the same thing as “natural causes”.
indirect76
Level 7
June 16, 2019
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.