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? That's the question our ethics columnist, Peter R. Kensicki, put to NU's readers. Read on for highlights and insights on the passionate responses.
Peter Kensicki is a professor of insurance at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Ky., as well as a member of the Ethics Committee of the CPCU Society in Malvern, Pa. He poses ethical queries to NU's readers every quarter, and this is the report he wrote for our Jan. 14 edition. Feel free to weigh in with your own views on the matter.
***
Recommended For You
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
© Touchpoint Markets, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more inforrmation visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
