FOX news article brings up question

by mega » Sat Feb 02, 2008 05:12 am
Posts: 118
Joined: 23 Jan 2008

Yesterday FOX news was reporting that Time Warner Cable was billing tornado victims for damage to cable boxes and equipment due to the tornado. Below is a quote from the article:


WHEATLAND, Wis. — Having a tornado demolish her home was bad enough. But when Ann Beam received a $2,000 cable bill a few weeks later, she was floored. "I just couldn't believe it," Beam said. "I was like, 'What are they thinking?'"

Time Warner Cable billed a number of Wheatland residents for equipment destroyed in the Jan. 7 twister that struck the southeast corner of the state. Beam's bill covered five cable boxes and five remote controls.

She immediately called the cable company, but a man who identified himself as a manager said there was nothing the company could do.

"They said I would have to take the bill and turn it in to my insurance company," Beam said.

But her cable equipment was nine years old, and the insurance company would pay only a depreciated value that wouldn't cover her bill, she said.



Now Time Warner also states that this was a "mistake" and all the customer has to do is call them and they will take these charges off their bill.

However, this does bring up a question about the "Act of God" clause that many insurances have. And my question is (in light of this recent news article),

If your insurance company refuses to cover some claim to your property under this "Act Of God" clause but some one else's property get destroyed as well are you responsible or does this "Act of God" clause relieve you from responsibility also?

It does not seem fair that some event happening that you could not control and is also a legal way out for large insurance companies to keep from paying a claim would leave you still responsible for some repair or replacement of other's property that might be affected but somehow I think the homeowner might still be held responsible.

In this case it appear that Time Warner did not want the bad "publicity" associated with the news that was being reported about this so they said it was a "mistake" but from reading the article it appears to me their original intent was to collect damages from the individuals who had their services and who's boxes had been damaged or destroyed.

Anyone feel like weighing in on this one?

Total Comments: 12

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:04 pm Post Subject:

Is there an "Act of God" exclusion under liability insurance? I don't think there is. The saying comes from a denial of liability due to no negligence (if no negligence, the insured is not legally required to pay, the policy will deny the claim but still provide the insured a defense). In the case you quote the insurance companies paid was the insured _may_ have been liable for. No more, no less. It's common that people/companies want to be paid replacement value for their damaged property but this is simply not owed. They are _legally_ entitled to the properties _current market value_. I doubt TW's contract stated replacement cost was owed and if it did, it would never stand up in court. The carrier paid what the insured legally owed (it does not matter that the insured did not damage the property (ie it was caused by an "Act of God") as the contract with TW bound the owner to pay for the property regardless of why it was damaged) and the carrier would have still provided the insured with a defense if TW pursued the issue.

To sum it up, despite the bad publicity, TW had every right to collect for their loss from the customer. The customers carrier paid what the customer owed. TW's bad move was to bill for more then their loss and to pursue the loss in such a terrible and unfortunate event.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 pm Post Subject:

That would have shocked anyone, who is thinking about thier cable boxes and remotes when they have lost everything. I do understand Warners stand though, especially if it hit several of their customers. Should Warner have something in place to cover their equipment and recover the loss also?

I mean if a customer purposely damaged the equipment then there may be an issue here, but a tornado, come on, the customer could not help or predict this.

I am thinking under the rental/lease agreement, what responsiblity does warner have to insure equipment.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:35 pm Post Subject:

act of God
From: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | Date: 2007 -

act of God in law, an accident caused by the operation of extraordinary natural force. The effect of ordinary natural causes (e.g., that rain will leak through a defective roof) may be foreseen and avoided by the exercise of human care; failure to take the necessary precautions constitutes negligence , and the party injured in the accident may be entitled to damages. An act of God, however, is so extraordinary and devoid of human agency that reasonable care would not avoid the consequences; hence, the injured party has no right to damages. Accidents caused by tornadoes, perils of the sea, extraordinary floods, and severe ice storms are usually considered acts of God, but fires are not so considered unless they are caused by lightning.



The most recent and notable attempt to use of the "Act of God" clause was by Allstate and other insure company with Katrina Victims.

Katrina Victims Challenge Insurance Denials
NOLA Flooding Caused by Human Neglect of Levees, One Suit Argues

September 20, 2005
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, a major storm is brewing over the denial of many homeowners' insurance claims. Battered by consumer attorneys on one side, major insurers are watching their credit ratings being downgraded because of what's likely to be the largest insured loss in U.S. history.

Insurance adjusters are out in force, using rented SUVs and wading boots and working 16-hour days. But the verdicts they deliver are often not much more welcome than Katrina herself was.

Adjusters are denying many homeowners' claims, saying the damage was caused by flooding, an "Act of God" that is not covered by homeowners policies. Many homeowners are outraged and several prominent lawyers are right behind the adjusters

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:41 pm Post Subject:

That is something completly different. It's a denial of 1st party coverage, not a liability claim. Also, flooding would be excluded from a HO policy. It's why flood policies exist. Not sure why 'Act of God' was mentioned.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:56 pm Post Subject: I may have read the response wrong

Yes I realize that normal homeowners policy's do not cover flooding and you must get that through the government program. And perhaps I was reading tscope's post wrong but I thought it was saying that insurance policy's do not have a AOG inclusion:

s there an "Act of God" exclusion under liability insurance?



I thought they all had this.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 01:02 pm Post Subject:

No need to have that exclusion under liability coverage (and inappropriate) as a person is usually not "legally liable" for these types of events. It's been mentioned before but adjusters should not mention things as "Act of God". It should simply be pointed out that a person is not liable for something beyond their control and for which they did not act in a negligent manner. Things happen... it does not mean someone is always responsible. To say something is an "Act of God" makes it sound like the insurance company is blaming "God" for what happen.

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 01:11 pm Post Subject: I understand there is debate on going about

The phrase "Act Of God" has been ever since I was a kid. Right now Gov. Mike Huckabee recently came under fire:

ACTS OF GOD'....Obviously, when it comes to religious beliefs, Mike Huckabee is free to think anything he wants. His faith is his business. That said, am I the only one who finds this a little odd?

Five days after the tornado tore through the state, [Arkadelphia, Ark., a] city of 10,000 lay in ruins. The cyclone destroyed an office building, a bank, a pharmacy and 70 other businesses. The electricity was out. The National Guard patrolled the streets. Six people were dead.

In Little Rock, GOP Gov. Mike Huckabee was reviewing a disaster insurance measure that he intended to support when he became troubled: The bill, drawing on centuries-old legal terminology, referred to natural disasters as "acts of God."

In a time of emergency, Huckabee would hold up the measure for more than three weeks to press his personal objection that the Almighty could not be blamed for the region's loss. In the process, he drew damaging headlines and created new strains in his relations with the state's legislature, the General Assembly.

Now, to be fair, it's worth noting that there's no indication that Huckabee's decision to delay the bill adversely affected anyone. But the state legislation in question sought to protect tornado victims from insurance companies that might cancel their policies, and used language -- "acts of God" -- which is standard in the law and in many insurance policies. Nevertheless, Huckabee refused to even consider disaster relief until the bill's wording was changed to meet his worldview.

One state senator noted, "Instead of getting focused on getting aid to the areas, he's in an uproar over words. It was kind of silly."



But I wasn't really concerned with the term, it's been around ever since I can remember. I mean it would not bother me if they change the wording.

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 06:01 am Post Subject:

I would say this cable company was ashamed of themselves.Later realizing how ridiculous they sounding billings already devastated people for cable boxes.Remins me of the telephone guy who came out and said our dog must have chewed our line .The linbe was tigtly up along the outside wall of our house and right at the point where it disappeared into the house was where they said the dog chewed it. In reality when they installed the line it was to tight and the bricks rubbed a hole in the line.They wanted us to pay for repairs.Of course we did not.Being there is no way a dog can get his snout into a hole the size of a telephone line.

Add your comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.