Reported But Not Reported (RBNR)

I would think so. I think there was a similar example brought up earlier. (Maybe not USA & Japan, but it involved undetonated ordinance of some sort from a war long ago over.) IIRC the consensus was that the act of war exclusion applied.

That said, invoking it could generate enough negative press for the insurer that they may elect to pay the claim anyway.

I know my employer chose to NOT invoke the act of war exclusion for 9/11 losses and just pay the claims. I don’t know what other insurers did. My employer didn’t have a lot of exposure, so the 9/11 losses were fairly minimal even compared to the expense of successfully defending a lawsuit.

I assume it technically qualified as an act of an undeclared war though.

Did your employers pay 9/11 claims or invoke Act Of War exclusions?

1 Like

The syndicates I worked with that had exposure then paid. I was told the story about 1906 San Francisco earthquake and why Lloyds paid then and they wanted to continue in the tradition.

My employer paid 9/11 claims. There was no consideration of using an act of war exclusion.

That event did of course bring about TRIA and made terrorism exclusions more commonplace when they were nonexistent before.

1 Like
3 Likes
1 Like

I mean, yeah that sounds like a trademark violation but I would argue that “original recipe” is a common enough phrase that it should not have been granted a trademark.

They are making fun of this on the radio and assuring everyone that it’s perfectly safe.

I have some of the affected butter. I suppose I could bring in a half-full one pound box and parlay that into a free four pound package. But on principle I probably won’t.

Sell it to the Russians on the DL

1 Like

The old guns vs butter argument

4 Likes

Do you even need to bring it in? Since Costco keeps tabs on you and your shopping so close, couldn’t you just say, yes I disposed of it, and they would refund your money? Seems that is how a lot of recalls go. Since they are telling you to throw it away, you shouldn’t have to bring it back to get the refund.

Oh maybe

And, of course, when I said, “yes, I disposed of it,” I really mean I used it all up as I would normally use butter because I know it contains milk and I am not allergic to it so I had no risk.

2 Likes
1 Like

They were caught because on the video you can totally see the zipper

You’ll never find me pretending that I’m a furry mammal.

What a quok.

2 Likes

Wait so was it the owners of the luxury vehicles staging fake bear break-ins? For what purpose? Cause $30,000 damage to your car and get a $30,000 check? Who does that benefit?

If you weren’t going to repair the vehicle I guess you could pocket the cash, but if you own a Rolls Royce is the threat of jail time plus the damage to your vehicle really worth $30,000?!?!

Am I missing something?

Part of it involved making the duplicate claims with other insurers.

Oh I missed that part. They had the cars insured multiple times?

1 Like