F'ing insurance industry

Jay,

You should call my insurance agent.


Trip

In article 7pekc.17445$RE1.1491868@attbi_s54, says...

I finished the call by telling her that insurance industry employees will
never be welcome in my cockpit. That should be a standing code among GA
pilots: If an insurance employee wants to fly, he or she can take a jet
or
leap from a building. There's no room in general aviation for people who
liken pilots to felons and the insane.

Your anger should be directed at your employer, not the insurance company
who simply tried to come up with the cheapest piece-of-crap-policy your
employer was willing to buy.

That said, I hate insurance companies even more than you do. You wouldn't
believe what it costs to insure my little hotel -- and, since they all work
in cahoots with each other, no other insurance company will even give me a
QUOTE, let alone offer a lower rate.

It ought to be illegal.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"gatt" wrote in message
...

My employer chose perhaps the most expensive and most useless insurance
policy they could, and today I called up Allegis Benefits and chewed them
up. Check this out:

"What is not covered under all plans:
- Suicide or attempted suicide while sane or insane
- Acts of war (declared or undeclared)
- Your commission of a felony
- Your operating, riding in, or descending from any ay aircraft other than
while a fare-paying passenger on a licensed, commercial, non-military
aircraft..."


One policy I had excluded those things and also riding on a motorcycle,
riding a bicycle in an "urban" environment, scuba diving, and injuries or
death resulting from riding in a motor vehicle if you weren't wearing a seat
belt.


I think it would read much simpler, and be a shorter document, if they just
said what situations they *did* cover.

What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it arguable
that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"

Most of the time we are pretty powerless to do anything. The worst one, at
least around here where we are close to a nuclear power plant, is that
homeowner's insurance won't cover that at all. The power company has, by
legislation, been absolved of responsibility, and the state and federal
government won't help either. However, the bank does point out explicitly
that in such a case the homeowner will be required to pay the balance of the
loan (i.e., it will be called) which means for virtually everyone, immediate
bankruptcy. And, oh yes, you are NOT entitled to a refund of your remaining
insurance premium...

What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it
arguable
that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"

Ah, no.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:mVekc.17582$RE1.1503458@attbi_s54...
What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it
arguable
that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"

Ah, no.


I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

But that's neither here nor there.

I guess my point is that I think that an insurance policy should not be
referencing God, unless they feel that their customers need to pray for fair
treatment by them.

I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

An omnipotent God and man's free will cannot coexist.

Therefore, you are correct -- an insurance company should not be referencing
God -- unless they believe their insured's bad "luck" to be pre-destined.

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsefkc.342$kh4.18552@attbi_s52...
I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

An omnipotent God and man's free will cannot coexist.

That is logical. But, unfortunately (IMHO), for these people "faith"
replaces logic.


Therefore, you are correct -- an insurance company should not be
referencing
God -- unless they believe their insured's bad "luck" to be pre-destined.

An insurance company who knew beforehand what each insured's losses would be
would be quite profitable indeed.

In article Defkc.342$kh4.18552@attbi_s52, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

An omnipotent God and man's free will cannot coexist.

Are you saying that an all-powerful God is not able to
create man with free will?

--
Bob Noel

If IIRC, the term "Act Of God" goes back to English Common Law.

Now this part gets confusing, so please bear with me. The term is not act of
God, which would imply a literal act of God, it is "Act Of God", which is a
label used in law to describe a specific collection of events.

So, if a blind person could suddenly see, it might well be an act of God,
but it would not be an "Act Of God", as it would not belong to the group of
events covered by that term.

So, when you come across "Act Of God" in an insurance policy, the insurer is
not saying that it was an event caused by a higher power, they are simply
saying that it was an event that meets the long established legal definition
of an "Act Of God".

Ain't legal stuff fun?



"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:mVekc.17582$RE1.1503458@attbi_s54...
What I like are the policies that exclude "Acts of God." Isn't it
arguable
that any bad thing that happens is an "Act of God?"

Ah, no.


I know people who claim *everything* is under the control of God.

But that's neither here nor there.

I guess my point is that I think that an insurance policy should not be
referencing God, unless they feel that their customers need to pray for
fair
treatment by them.

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
If IIRC, the term "Act Of God" goes back to English Common Law.

Now this part gets confusing, so please bear with me. The term is not act
of
God, which would imply a literal act of God, it is "Act Of God", which is
a
label used in law to describe a specific collection of events.

So, if a blind person could suddenly see, it might well be an act of God,
but it would not be an "Act Of God", as it would not belong to the group
of
events covered by that term.

So, when you come across "Act Of God" in an insurance policy, the insurer
is
not saying that it was an event caused by a higher power, they are simply
saying that it was an event that meets the long established legal
definition
of an "Act Of God".

Ain't legal stuff fun?


I figured it was something like that, I just wish they clearly defined what
those risks were.

Oh, legal stuff is a blast. Just follow the SCO story (www.groklaw.net) for
a while to see some "fun" things that can happen.

In article , Bill Denton
wrote:

So, when you come across "Act Of God" in an insurance policy, the insurer is
not saying that it was an event caused by a higher power, they are simply
saying that it was an event that meets the long established legal definition
of an "Act Of God".

Sounds like the FAA's definition of "congested area".