The Fortuity Doctrine

0
3Кб

A Video Explaining “Fortuity” as an Unwritten Exclusion

Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fortuity-doctrine-barry-zalma-esq-cfe and See the full video at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921 and at https://youtu.be/EJwsF5HmB7I and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 3850 posts.

Because the purpose of insurance is to protect insureds against unknown, or fortuitous, risks, fortuity is an inherent requirement of all insurance policies that take on the risk of loss accepted by the policy. [Two Pesos, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co., 901 S.W. 2d 495, 502 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, no writ)]. The fortuity doctrine precludes coverage for both a “known loss” and a “loss in progress.” A “known loss” is a loss the insured knew had occurred prior to making the insurance contract. [Burch v. Commonwealth Mut. Ins. Co., 450 S.W. 2d 838, 840-41 (Tex. 1970)].

The doctrine has its roots in the prevention of fraud: because insurance policies are designed to insure against fortuities, fraud occurs when a policy is misused to insure a certainty. Inland Waters Pollution Control, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 997 F. 2d 172, 175-77 (6th Cir. 1993) and Scottsdale Insurance Company v. William Barret Travis, Maintenance, Inc., No. 05-99-01831-CV (Tex. App. Dist. 5 05/29/2001).

The California Supreme Court considered the complex questions of insurance policy coverage interpretation that arose in connection with a federal court-ordered cleanup of the state’s Stringfellow Acid Pits waste site. The Supreme Court initially addressed the “‘continuous injury’ trigger of coverage,” as that principle was explained in Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, (P.2d 878 (1995) and the “all sums” rule adopted in Aerojet-General Corp. v. Transport Indemnity Co. (1997) 17 Cal.4th 38, 55-57 (Aerojet). The California Supreme Court brought to an end the dispute that started in the 1960’s when the Stringfellow Acid Pits began to leak. [State Of California v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 851 (54 Cal. Rptr. 3d 343)]

Спонсоры

We are 100% funded for October.

Thanks to everyone who helped out. 🥰

Xephula monthly operating expenses for 2024 - Server: $143/month - Backup Software: $6/month - Object Storage: $6/month - SMTP Service: $10/month - Stripe Processing Fees: ~$10/month - Total: $175/month

Xephula Funding Meter

Please Donate Here

Поиск
Категории
Больше
Другое
$117 Million Verdict Turned to Wallpaper
Judge Failed to Properly Vet Experts Before Trial to the Detriment of the Defendants Read the...
От Barry Zalma 2021-04-30 12:37:22 0 8Кб
Другое
Murderer of her own Children - Avoids Death Penalty
A Case of Evil - But Death Penalty Reversed Read the full article at...
От Barry Zalma 2021-05-13 12:26:58 0 5Кб
Politics
Judge tosses last election lawsuit in Arizona
An Arizona judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit from two voters alleging mishandled ballots, the...
От Meme King 2020-11-21 17:30:40 0 4Кб
Другое
It is Dangerous for Insurance Fraudster to Ignore Court Orders
It is Dangerous for Insurance Fraudster to Ignore Court Orders Court Orders DOJ to Indict...
От Barry Zalma 2024-09-13 12:35:55 0 810
Politically Incorrect
Loudly Proud - [10/4/2020]
See the source article here. There is just so much wrong with this article that it’s giving...
От Scathing Take 2020-10-12 21:34:19 0 5Кб