Mr.Mcknowitall

Yep.

i am sure you will do well tomorrow. Don't come back unless you ace it.

There we go...... Thank you.

That is another thing. There should be equality...a Dislike Leader Board. I would then be in the running...change that...I would win the category hands down, every darn day probably, and be the Leader in something for the first time in my life.

Leader board is a dufus concept. It does not have to do so much with great posts (I don't even pretend to know what that means on a comics chat board) as it does with a sort of buddy system. Don't like somebody? Post a about the member. You get lots of likes. Not exactly great posts category. An example, I enjoy the humor posts by DR.X. On likes alone, he should be the leader. Nothing phases DR.X. Straight shooter. Don't like him? too bad. Like him? Too bad. But, his humor is unmatched. So, why is he not a leader? Another example, jaybucks, mild mannered Rumple of the Baley. Hard to find fault with his straightforward posts and help with a lot of things...tech, legal, play on words, etc. So why is he not a leader? I get it, but I don't get it.

At least post an appropriate response/comment picture. I am geared to enjoy the humor when you post.

Concur, and the thing about claims is, file and file and file and do it quickly and file with anybody/any entity that has anything to do with or about anything in the chain of possession /or interest in the loss. The dog ate the homework does not count in the insurance world.

OK. Except I don't think you are reading the comment of Ankurj incorrectly. He was simply told they are fully covered in case of catastrophic damage. I suspect you are replying to the loss under discussion, not the Ankurj post. As a seasoned insurance specialist, I am sure you are aware that the coverage that Ankurj was told means nothing as an answer, and the question arises if the framer he referred to understands what catastrophic means and what an umbrella means and what it covers, or even understood what Ankurj was asking. But, I am easy. I will go with you being correct.

I think you may not be covered.

100 on my screen. You guys did it. I would like to think that my humble efforts helped in this endeavor. I would like to thank all those that supported me by responding to my posts which of course gave me an opening to post answers to boost the page total. I won't forget those kind gestures and brotherly love to help me, so I could modestly claim credit.

...skip to my loo, my darling..... That's all I've got.

I am exercising prior commitments in the WC

Just a drive by to pitch in to help you guys get to 100. YW.

Yes, it is reasonable and they should be, but there is also the subrogation issue, which is what the policy holder can reasonably expect their insurance company to activate, not withstanding any clause to the contrary that clearly shifts the responsibility and coverage. Then there is the other aspect, that the insured can't go for the unjust enrichment ploy, and claiming both coverages. He would be the new Jesus in the insurance world, because he would be nailed to the Cross.

Could you possibly post the voluntary surrender of items to a third party clause in your policy? Also, the accidental breakage clause, if you can. Any language that states it would not be covered in the framing shop itself would also be of help. The point being, the policy is read as a whole, not a pick and choose.

Except the coverage should and must be consistent and not subject to another reasonable interpretation as a method of denial of a claim. In the clause highlighted, it is not a reasonable interpretation to limit what "...or others working on your behalf..." means, when at the same time hotel damage or damage by FedEx ...both examples of working on behalf of.....is covered. The clause can reasonably be interpreted as dealing with unqualified persons working on behalf of and without the knowledge of.

Thus the reason for question #2. Things are not always what they seem in the insurance claims world. There would also be an issue of subrogating involved with #2.

It is not so much any disagreement at all with you, as it is questions. It is a matter of insurance law. Without going to much into claims litigation, if 2 interpretations are reasonable, then the writer will normally be the payupper, because the writer could have made the position clear, and in failing to do so, owes some wampum to somebody. The questions I presented all have a bearing on the claim, and what other laws may apply; for instance interstate commerce, etc. I admittedly did not read the contract signed for the particular person that is seeking to be reimbursed, but I did do some research on other contracts by this entity. the same unclear language clause exists. 'while worked on" is not the standard to be met for a denial. There is also the matter of whether it was secondary damage caused by a primary event...as an example, it is being framed and an incident having nothing to do with the act of framing causes the damage. The other question reaches to the entity that allowed the person that worked on the framing assigned a person to do the work that is trained and qualified for the assigned task and/or was supervised by an expert. This is pretty standard stuff in the insurance claims world. It is also pretty standard stuff for the insurance company to answer "no". Until challenged.

The bold exclusion is subject to interpretation, at the very least. The language is purposely vague, and I would question what is meant by 'others working on your behalf". FedEx works on your behalf. The hotel works on your behalf. The U.S. mail works on your behalf. While the reasonable expectation of activation of the particular clause would be if an untrained family member or friend without an ongoing business entity that is involved in the work being requested damaged the item it would surely be denied; not so for an ongoing enterprise that is licensed and insured for the expected task and performing the duties on your behalf in the ordinary course of business, within their business expertise. 1st question: Is the person that has experienced the loss in the same State as the entity? 2nd question: Was the damage caused by a non-qualified employee of the entity? 3rd question: Was the damage secondary damage due to a primary event?

What did you do to Tim McGraw?

I wish you had mentioned make it a priority that members are no longer allowed to post things like "Chin chin" or "Cheerio old sport" or "here here" or stuff like that, or in the alternative, provide the ability to post a nifty symbol that clearly displays: "Dislike With The Highest Possible Human Intensity"! It is just a little tweak, and saves a lot of typing.

Well, as a comics collector outsider, you had me until the "Chin chin" bit.

...note the use of the word "every" before assuming.....