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:
- All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
- Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
- Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
Already have an account? Sign In
© 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.
