What are the ethical implications of the controversial concurrent causation clause in property policies, which critics contend unfairly leaves those victimized by covered wind and uncovered flood losses potentially devoid of insurance, but which carriers say quite properly protects them against paying for uninsured damages?
Is the clause itself a fundamental problem, ethically speaking, or simply how it was implemented following Hurricane Katrina? And is there a way to more fairly exclude flood damage without leaving policyholders high and dry?
Among National Underwriter readers who responded to our invitation to speak out, opinions were roughly evenly split as to the ethics of the clause itself.
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
