Hamilton police say they are investigating a “series of mischiefs” after dozens of Tesla vehicles were damaged at a local dealership this week.Subscribe to C...
It’s not safe to assume insurance plans will cover acts of “”“terrorism”“” or vandalism by default. Not to mention that insurance companies will pull any trick they can to get out of paying, so they actually have incentive to make the argument that Elon Musk provoked the protests (reckless or intentional misconduct).
Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine - Insurance often covers direct vandalism, but if the insurer argues the root cause was the CEO’s illegal actions, they could deny the claim.
Elon Musk’s actions that caused the protests are technically crimes, the insurance companies may claim that they are not responsible for forseeable consequences that occur while Elon Musk is committing a crime.
The insurance company could claim that the dealership should have hired additional security in response to the actions of the CEO.
If Trump classifies the damages as “”“terrorism”“”, some insurance plans will deny claims if you did not pay extra for terrorism coverage.
Fraud - can the insurer prove that the CEO intentionally provoked protests to destroy inventory and claim insurance money? Or merely suggest the possibility of an investigation as a threat?
It’s not safe to assume insurance plans will cover acts of “”“terrorism”“” or vandalism by default. Not to mention that insurance companies will pull any trick they can to get out of paying, so they actually have incentive to make the argument that Elon Musk provoked the protests (reckless or intentional misconduct).
Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine - Insurance often covers direct vandalism, but if the insurer argues the root cause was the CEO’s illegal actions, they could deny the claim.
Elon Musk’s actions that caused the protests are technically crimes, the insurance companies may claim that they are not responsible for forseeable consequences that occur while Elon Musk is committing a crime.
The insurance company could claim that the dealership should have hired additional security in response to the actions of the CEO.
If Trump classifies the damages as “”“terrorism”“”, some insurance plans will deny claims if you did not pay extra for terrorism coverage.
Fraud - can the insurer prove that the CEO intentionally provoked protests to destroy inventory and claim insurance money? Or merely suggest the possibility of an investigation as a threat?
This is quite a good analysis of the situation and I like it, thanks for sharing!