4 ms·

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

by 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.

by rswail 6y ago

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.