Looks like that case was resolved to the policyholders satisfaction, so not a good example at all. Besides that, the denial was because they were, in actuality, not in compliance with their policy, not because they did something stupid. It was a stupid denial because the violation was extremely in the “well, technically” category, and had nothing to do with the loss.
Okay, I suppose I asked for that, exposing my US-centric thoughts. I meant in the US :).
In the US, insurance covers stupidity. At least once -- your insurer may drop you after they pay out. As long as you don't have an exclusion in the contract covering a particular type of stupidity, and you are not committing fraud, you will be covered.
Also, I’ve always had a rider in my contracts that said the insurer waives their right to not pay if I’m at fault. I don’t know why this rider even exists but I always get it since it was first offered to me years ago.
Are you still talking about the battery starting a fire, and saying that it's my fault rather than the battery's fault? Because that's not an "indeed". I'm talking about non-battery fires.
If you're on the same page as me, and talking about non-battery fires... What makes it my fault?? Are you saying any possible fire is my fault? With the implication that insurance shouldn't pay out for any fires ever??
