Denied boarding

[That sinking feeling]

Amusingly acts of god are not covered in insurance policies by that term. They hide it under something akin to any other business. And in most cases cannot be challenged. Got to love insurance firms.

[That sinking feeling]

More amusingly the reference to god does suggest that anything not attributable to a mere human being must have been done by a non human being and could be covered by god.

[mayleeman]

@That sinking feeling  Please see my post up above for a general idea.

 

It is a legal catch-all phrase designed to cover natural events not caused by humans. For example, an avalanche after 8 feet of snow in the Alps--yes. An avalanche caused by blasting next to a mine--no.

 

It is NOT a theological concept, so your subjective feelings about the language is totally irrelevant. It grew out of a need to distinguish natural events as a group from human causes, and the phrase was used to avoid having to list everything.

 

And yes, some companies have abused the phrase to avoid liability, but that has nothing to do with whether it is a valid term. Most homeowners policies have exclusions, and many offer coverage for some of those exclusions as a rider for an extra premium. In the US, most flood policies are through a special program that requires separate coverage. 

 

If an insurance policy like a warranty excludes acts of god, courts will usually enforce the exclusion but might not do so if the policy would have no reasonable meaning--a wind and rain denial under an "act of god" exclusion for a new roof warranty, for example, might get booted if a court deemed it could only apply to extraordinary events like a meteorite. 

 

Most modern policies have specific exclusions, and then you go find one that does not exclude what your particular concern might be. 

 

But no court will decide the word is offensive and therefore unenforceable. They might decide it is too vague under particular circumstances.

Edited February 12, 2020 by mayleeman

[ilikeanswers]

5 hours ago, That sinking feeling said:

Unless people stop with this act of god nonsense insurance companies will continue to use it as an excuse not to pay out. And they do. A lot.

 

I suffered this 10 years ago and others are suffering now.

 

I dont recognise god. Thats the first thing. Any god.

 

And I lived on a flood plain for 10 years and my insurance company happily insured me. Until it flooded.

 

Then suddenly my insurance was invalid because it flooded. Didnt bother them taking my premiums for 10 years though. And no. There was nothing in the small print. Hence why I won eventually.

 

We had huge levels of rainfall. The worst ever recorded. Bridges collapsed etc.

 

Suddenly the term act of god was thrown at us all.

 

I told them there was no god. How can it be an act of something that doesn't exist?  I despise the term. And refuse to recognise it. 

 

If you live in an area suspectible to hurricanes and your insurance company insures your property. They can say it's an act of god when a hurricane occurs.

 

It's more an act of gross stupidity on their part.

 

I read about a case after a cyclone hit and people's houses were full of water. Insurance claimed they would not pay out because they did not think the houses were "flooded" which was covered but that the sea had risen into their houses which apparently is not considered flooding therefore they were not covered😳.

[sanger727]

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

@That sinking feeling  Please see my post up above for a general idea.

 

It is a legal catch-all phrase designed to cover natural events not caused by humans. For example, an avalanche after 8 feet of snow in the Alps--yes. An avalanche caused by blasting next to a mine--no.

 

It is NOT a theological concept, so your subjective feelings about the language is totally irrelevant. It grew out of a need to distinguish natural events as a group from human causes, and the phrase was used to avoid having to list everything.

 

And yes, some companies have abused the phrase to avoid liability, but that has nothing to do with whether it is a valid term. Most homeowners policies have exclusions, and many offer coverage for some of those exclusions as a rider for an extra premium. In the US, most flood policies are through a special program that requires separate coverage. 

 

If an insurance policy like a warranty excludes acts of god, courts will usually enforce the exclusion but might not do so if the policy would have no reasonable meaning--a wind and rain denial under an "act of god" exclusion for a new roof warranty, for example, might get booted if a court deemed it could only apply to extraordinary events like a meteorite. 

 

Most modern policies have specific exclusions, and then you go find one that does not exclude what your particular concern might be. 

 

But no court will decide the word is offensive and therefore unenforceable. They might decide it is too vague under particular circumstances.

 

Well, in that case it seems an "act of god" would not apply here... since people exposed themselves to poor sanitary practices at a market, and people got sick, and people failed to self quarantine, spreading the illness to others....

[ducklite]

2 hours ago, That sinking feeling said:

I have no idea what term of art means. And dont worry. Life carried on after 6 months fighting an insurance company that decided wearher wasnt a reason to claim against your home flooding.

 

 

Was it flood insurance that wouldn't pay?  

[mayleeman]

@sanger727 The definition isn't dependent on whether a person was involved at some step however remote from the injury suffered. If a sudden gale-force wind blows a properly piloted boat into a dock, that would likely be an AoG even though a human might be involved. "Exposing oneself to unsanitary conditions" would need a lot to negate the conclusion it is a naturally occurring disease that happened to infect someone randomly, like lightning hitting a pedestrian. Furthermore, how it spread down the line (whether intervention could have stopped it) is not a key issue because infectiousness is an inherent aspect of diseases (again, speaking generally here).

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by mayleeman

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I read about a case after a cyclone hit and people's houses were full of water. Insurance claimed they would not pay out because they did not think the houses were "flooded" which was covered but that the sea had risen into their houses which apparently is not considered flooding therefore they were not covered😳.

Rule of thumb with insurance--if the water comes in from the top--ie you lose your roof and the house fills with water as a result, your HOI will pay.  If it comes in from the ground--ie a flood, your HOI won't pay for it unless you specifically have flood insurance.

[2wheelin]

3 hours ago, ducklite said:

Rule of thumb with insurance--if the water comes in from the top--ie you lose your roof and the house fills with water as a result, your HOI will pay.  If it comes in from the ground--ie a flood, your HOI won't pay for it unless you specifically have flood insurance.

Good synopsis. Many equate the words flood and water—to their dismay when it floods.

[Ava79]

On 2/4/2020 at 8:59 AM, ilikeanswers said:

 

To me the key wording is cancelled within 24hrs of departure. I think any cruise line that cancels with such short notice should give some compensation because most passengers within 24hrs of departure will have already put in time and resources that cannot be taken back or rearranged especially if you are expected to fly to Singapore. Celebrity have known about the epidemic for months and it was their own perogative to make the decision to not allow passengers who transit through Hong Kong. They should have been aware that the date they implemented that decision would immediately affect certain cruise passengers and those passengers should be compensated for the last minute decision making of Celebrity.

 

Anyone with travel isurance should check if pandemics won't invalidate your insurance.

I subscribe to every word and express my sincere sympathy to the author cause this is really a very offensive situation. Really, why didn't they warn them sooner?

[mayleeman]

@Ava79

 

Been following along closely paying lots of attentil to the real dates, have you? The OP is the only person asserting that "Celebrity have known about the epidemic for months". As of the time the OP wrote it, even the Chinese had been aware of it for barely more than one month. As of Jan 6 there were only 60 suspected cases.

 

Please read this timeline to see how the rapid spread of this virus has taken everybody by surprise, and take a close look at the travel restriction changes in the single week before the OP's silly claim that Celebrity should have known immediately what to do. If they were that good at prognosticating, they would not be running a cruiseline. Profit margins are much higher in stock markets if you can tell the future.

 

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/coronavirus-a-timeline-of-how-the-deadly-outbreak-evolved/

Edited February 12, 2020 by mayleeman

[ilikeanswers]

5 hours ago, ducklite said:

Rule of thumb with insurance--if the water comes in from the top--ie you lose your roof and the house fills with water as a result, your HOI will pay.  If it comes in from the ground--ie a flood, your HOI won't pay for it unless you specifically have flood insurance.

 

Out of curiosity how would one define if there is both rain and water coming in from the ground?

[ducklite]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Out of curiosity how would one define if there is both rain and water coming in from the ground?

Do you mean roof is gone and house is also flooded?  At that point it's probably a total loss and the HOI would pay out the claim per the policy.  You wouldn't be able to double dip.  The HOI might subrogate some from the flood policy, but that would be up to them and you probably wouldn't even be privy to it.

[ilikeanswers]

2 hours ago, mayleeman said:

@Ava79

 

Been following along closely paying lots of attentil to the real dates, have you? The OP is the only person asserting that "Celebrity have known about the epidemic for months". As of the time the OP wrote it, even the Chinese had been aware of it for barely more than one month. As of Jan 6 there were only 60 suspected cases.

 

Please read this timeline to see how the rapid spread of this virus has taken everybody by surprise, and take a close look at the travel restriction changes in the single week before the OP's silly claim that Celebrity should have known immediately what to do. If they were that good at prognosticating, they would not be running a cruiseline. Profit margins are much higher in stock markets if you can tell the future.

 

https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/news/coronavirus-a-timeline-of-how-the-deadly-outbreak-evolved/

 

Actually China was officially aware beginning of December, they reported to WHO end of Decemeber. Any company conducting business in the region especially one prone to infectious diseases should be monitering local news. When WHO declared PHEIC they made it clear in their statement The Committee does not recommend any travel or trade restriction based on the current information available.

 

The cruise line's decision to ban passengers who had layovered in HK was their on own choice not enforced by anyone nor recommended by any organisation expect their internal assesers. Therefore they could have given warnings to passengers of upcoming cruises that they were considering this restrictions and passengers could have made choices to amend their flights based on these warning. There was no reason to give passengers less than 24hrs warning before boarding cruise.

 

Statement on the second meeting of the International Health Regulations (2005) Emergency Committee regarding the outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV)

[ilikeanswers]

5 minutes ago, ducklite said:

Do you mean roof is gone and house is also flooded?  At that point it's probably a total loss and the HOI would pay out the claim per the policy.  You wouldn't be able to double dip.  The HOI might subrogate some from the flood policy, but that would be up to them and you probably wouldn't even be privy to it.

 

So if you don't lose a roof it is not considered a flood? Why are insurance companies allowed to change the definitions of words in the English language😕?

[ducklite]

1 minute ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

So if you don't lose a roof it is not considered a flood? Why are insurance companies allowed to change the definitions of words in the English language😕?

If the water comes into your home via seepage from the ground or under doors or through holes in the walls caused by flood debris or windows broken or pushed in by water and/or flood debris, it is considered flooding and not covered under home owners insurance.  You need to have a flood insurance policy for that.  

 

If the water comes into your home via the empty space where the roof (or sections of it) used to be, or through windows that have been broken by flying debris or blown in (not been pushed in by flood waters) damage is covered under the windstorm portion of your policy.  

I'm not sure I can make it more simple. 

[Host Kat]

Since OP's original inquiry is no longer being discussed, this thread is locked.