Indemnity--that is, placing the claimant into the same financial position held prior to a loss--is the best that the insurance business can offer. Theoretically, claimants should not be allowed to profit from a loss. But some jurisdictions actively encourage profiting from insurance by legislating Valued Policy Laws, or court decisions allowing duplicate payments for losses. Ethically, should insurers offer insurance in jurisdictions where the concept of indemnity is ignored? Should insurance professionals seek legislation that returns insurance to providing only indemnity? Post your responses here, and please note what role you play in the industry.
Comments (1)
As an adjuster, respecting the contractual obligations placed by the issuance of the insurance policy would seem to be the end goal rather than debating the semantics of indemnity.
The intentions of the parties to the contract should be clear. Replacement vs. A.C.V. are like options to be purchased as agreed upon.
Competiveness in the marketplace now dictates the interpretation of indemnity.
Posted by Marc Dubois | July 9, 2007 11:15 AM
Posted on July 9, 2007 11:15