Charles A. Weiss of the list of Top-2005 cases.
U.S. District Court construes the concept of “loss” as part of an insurance policy dishonesty staff.Acid Piping Technology Inc vs Great Northern Insurance Co., U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:04-CV-01667-CDP, probation November 9, 2005.
In one case, the first impression under the law of Missouri, Judge Catherine Perry of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri, that the concept of “loss” as part of an employee dishonesty insurance means that each fraudulent act, resulting in a loss, rather than fraud system.
Acid Piping Technology dishonest people diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company by inflating costs at 92 and double billing invoices costs of freight in at least six occasions.
The insurance damage caused by a collaborator … Either from a single act or an unlimited number of files “. The policy states that “We pay the most for each loss is an amount of the loss” to a coverage limit of $ 5000, with a deductible of $ 1000 which “refers to each case separately.”
The insurer argued that the persistence of fraud and the whole system is a loss, a ceiling of $ 5000. The insured argued that each invoice has been falsified a separate loss under the policy.Perry has the policy of the ambiguous language of Missouri and the law must be against the insurer. Perry pointed out that there is no policy language that explains the relationship between an “event” and a “loss”. , Que policy fight against the insurer and that each invoice has been falsified by a “loss” under the policy. Perry noted that “insurance with a limit of five thousand dollars for any number of overloading or invoices double billing, offers little protection for the uninsured, whose employees to fifty thousand dollars in one transaction” . She explained that if the insured has acquired his staff dishonesty, it is reasonable to ensure against a mere “loss” of dishonesty as a whole and not “pattern” of dishonesty or fraud.