Does the possibility that a guilty insured might profit from the payment on the claim impact the decision to pay the claim?
Many of us have been there. You have a sympathetic and seemingly honest insured. There is no question, however, that the loss before you—arson of a residence, business, warehouse, or automobile; theft of jewelry, business personal property, or inventory; or destruction of an automobile—resulted from the intentional acts of another insured. The facts of how the loss occurred, the property destroyed or taken, and the relationship between the insureds may vary, but the theme is the same: a non-fortuitous loss caused by an insured with a claim presented by an apparently innocent co-insured.
Do you deny the claim, pay the entire claim, or pay a portion of the claim? Does the possibility that the guilty insured might profit from the payment on the claim impact the decision to pay the claim?
To read Margaret Miglietta’s complete article, please visit the Claims Management website.
