Agnostic.com

10 7

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.

meister268 5 June 16
Share

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.

1

"Act of God" has a specific legal meaning and its use does not mean that insurers hold any theistic ideas.

Corden Level 5 June 17, 2019
1

Excellent advice!!

1

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

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.

0

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.

2

I fear Americans may not have the same outcome in Court as you did.

2

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!

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”.

0

they may try it in the USA but I would be very surprised if any insurance company tried that in the UK. that clause has been removed from policies here many years ago.

1

I would absolutely fight, and win against, any kind of "act of god" argument.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:361508
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.