3 ms·
A comment above claimed: > insurance generally excludes riot and terrorism from coverage anyway If that's true, they'd have even more incentive to declare a c
by leereeves 2y ago
A comment above claimed:
> insurance generally excludes riot and terrorism from coverage anyway
If that's true, they'd have even more incentive to declare a claim as due to terrorism if you didn't have a rider. They could avoid paying it altogether.
- neilv 2y agoMy question was about cases in which they wouldn't/couldn't deny claim due to terrorism on weak grounds, since they'd be taken to court for denying the claim, since the grounds are weak. But if you had a terrorism rider in those cases, then maybe it's worse for you, because then they wouldn't be denying the claim initially, but maybe instead you're stuck in a different process, with various downsides, and maybe less able to contest the assertion?
- leereeves 2y agoCould the downsides of a rider really be worse than a lawsuit?
- neilv 2y agoI tried to clarify when I posted the original question, with an example scanario, in which, without the rider, you'd simply get paid, because the insurance company doesn't want the lawsuit. The question for that example scenario then is: would having a rider give the insurance company a viable option that is less-desirable to you. (Such as because it delays you getting paid, you get paid less, it gets into a buck-passing Kafkaesque process between government and insurance company, there are less protections, etc.)