3 ms·

This is extremely ambiguous, the insurance company may refuse to pay any insurer at all based on this clause.

close04 6y ago
This may be treated as "insider knowledge" but I expect the burden is on the insurance company to prove prior knowledge. But "reasonably deduces"... that can be used in any such case where mass payouts are a likely outcome. If I can "reasonably deduce" a payout will be needed than so can the insurance company. Under these conditions accepting my insurance purchase should be seen as the company committing fraud. They accept a payment knowing the customer can never collect.
- rswail 6y ago
  Note that it's "reasonably deduces" at the time of buying the insurance contract. So it's not like the insurance company can say "you should have cancelled the night before because everyone could see the storm coming".
  - close04 6y ago
    I think I addressed it pretty clearly before. If a regular consumer can "reasonably" deduce (using logic, not some "illegal" insider knowledge) at the time of buying the insurance policy that the flight may be cancelled then the insurance company employing experts and very accurate statistical models can more than reasonably make the same deduction. Now since we agree that both parties deduced the flight will be cancelled but the company still went ahead and took the money for the insurance contract, this can only be fraud. The company took the money under false pretenses since they implicitly know even before the transaction that the claim is null and void under the "reasonable deduction" paragraph.
  - ErikVandeWater 6y ago
    The reason people buy flight insurance is because they reasonably deduce the flight might be cancelled.
    - jacobr1 6y ago
      There is a line (fuzzy line, granted) between the general possibility and specific knowledge. An example might be: flying to the southeast coastal areas during hurricane season. There is an increased likelihood based on historical evidence of the weather canceling flights. But nothing specific. Once a storm is a named, has tracks with predicted (but still not certain) dates and locations, there is much more specific evidence. This type of situation is very difficult to write rules to handle every case, but we can create rules of thumb that the courts at least will tend to be even-handed about.
      - close04 6y ago
        There's also a clear line between specific knowledge ("I know for a fact Company X will cancel flights starting next week") and reasonable deduction ("many times it rained heavily they cancelled flights"). I get why the first one is unacceptable but the wording in their agreement fits the second one.
- buran77 6y ago
  Not sure why downvoted, if the clause actually reads like that it seems like insurance companies stacking the odds in their favor. Like a casino that reserves the right to kick you out if you're winning. Even if I can deduce it might be delayed, that's far from certainty. I take insurance only when I reasonably expect to encounter incidents. Does this make all my policies invalid? When the company "reasonably deduces" that there will be no delays do they give me the money back? I hope they are reserving this clause for such obvious fraud cases where they can prove prior knowledge and intent. Like the case of this woman who even created fake identities to carry out the plan. Otherwise I see them being stuck in court forever either trying to prove that a random customer had some sort of insight that they didn't despite literally being their job and investing (tens of) millions in this. Or trying to prove that they didn't knowingly sell a policy with the expectation that they will never provide the payout, which is misrepresentation of the service at the very least.
Majromax 6y ago
> This is extremely ambiguous, Perhaps we should not rush to finely parse language that has gone through a double translation: from legaleese to reporter and from Chinese to English.

This may be treated as "insider knowledge" but I expect the burden is on the insurance company to prove prior knowledge. But "reasonably deduces"... that can be used in any such case where mass payouts are a likely outcome. If I can "reasonably deduce" a payout will be needed than so can the insurance company. Under these conditions accepting my insurance purchase should be seen as the company committing fraud. They accept a payment knowing the customer can never collect.

rswail 6y ago
Note that it's "reasonably deduces" at the time of buying the insurance contract. So it's not like the insurance company can say "you should have cancelled the night before because everyone could see the storm coming".
- close04 6y ago
  I think I addressed it pretty clearly before. If a regular consumer can "reasonably" deduce (using logic, not some "illegal" insider knowledge) at the time of buying the insurance policy that the flight may be cancelled then the insurance company employing experts and very accurate statistical models can more than reasonably make the same deduction. Now since we agree that both parties deduced the flight will be cancelled but the company still went ahead and took the money for the insurance contract, this can only be fraud. The company took the money under false pretenses since they implicitly know even before the transaction that the claim is null and void under the "reasonable deduction" paragraph.
- ErikVandeWater 6y ago
  The reason people buy flight insurance is because they reasonably deduce the flight might be cancelled.
  - jacobr1 6y ago
    There is a line (fuzzy line, granted) between the general possibility and specific knowledge. An example might be: flying to the southeast coastal areas during hurricane season. There is an increased likelihood based on historical evidence of the weather canceling flights. But nothing specific. Once a storm is a named, has tracks with predicted (but still not certain) dates and locations, there is much more specific evidence. This type of situation is very difficult to write rules to handle every case, but we can create rules of thumb that the courts at least will tend to be even-handed about.
    - close04 6y ago
      There's also a clear line between specific knowledge ("I know for a fact Company X will cancel flights starting next week") and reasonable deduction ("many times it rained heavily they cancelled flights"). I get why the first one is unacceptable but the wording in their agreement fits the second one.
buran77 6y ago
Not sure why downvoted, if the clause actually reads like that it seems like insurance companies stacking the odds in their favor. Like a casino that reserves the right to kick you out if you're winning. Even if I can deduce it might be delayed, that's far from certainty. I take insurance only when I reasonably expect to encounter incidents. Does this make all my policies invalid? When the company "reasonably deduces" that there will be no delays do they give me the money back? I hope they are reserving this clause for such obvious fraud cases where they can prove prior knowledge and intent. Like the case of this woman who even created fake identities to carry out the plan. Otherwise I see them being stuck in court forever either trying to prove that a random customer had some sort of insight that they didn't despite literally being their job and investing (tens of) millions in this. Or trying to prove that they didn't knowingly sell a policy with the expectation that they will never provide the payout, which is misrepresentation of the service at the very least.

Majromax 6y ago

> This is extremely ambiguous, Perhaps we should not rush to finely parse language that has gone through a double translation: from legaleese to reporter and from Chinese to English.