Comments on: Fisker sues insurance company over 338 cars, $33M, lost in Sandy

By: l.scally

l.scally — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:22:34 +0000

they would say your policy is not water tight,in fact they will say its full of holes, any reason /loophole to get out/the usual did you read the small print ,you would need a hubble telecscope to read the small print,at least a bookmaker takes your money and also a risk then if they lose they pay up with a smile no moans /whinges and guess what they do not decline your bet next time round..

By: Joshua Mark

Joshua Mark — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:06:27 +0000

My, what a convenient way to sell cars. Park them in front of a hurricane then claim the full ‘value’ on cars that never would have sold! Genius.

I hope this is their demise.

BTW – “Acts of God” is still the legal term referring to natural disasters. Some policies cover them and some don’t.

By: LEH

LEH — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 15:44:56 +0000

Re acts of God, I am a contractor here in NY and have many residential customers who collected on their homeowners policy after Sandy for all sorts of damages, including tree removal, powerline repairs within the property, roof repairs, even fence repairs, so somebody’s missing something major here in these comments. And how about flood insurance?

By: Kelenpé

Kelenpé — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 14:04:26 +0000

Plagued with financial issues, quality setbacks, political criticism and now wheather related destruction, it just seems that this car company is ‘cursed’ since it’s inception. Next we’ll be hearing aligations about Henrik Fisker selling cocain to keep his 1st quarter margins afloat. Maybe this is an indication that this company needs to be dissolved.

By: stephen

stephen — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 20:54:13 +0000

If its an act of god, then fisker should sue the church as they are supposed to be gods representative on earth. The church will then have to try to get the case thrown out of court on the grounds that god does not really exist.. checkmate!

By: Aalisdiar1

Aalisdiar1 — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:20:37 +0000

Actually the thing is that it comes under Act of God and one can not claim for the insurance of that things that comes under act of God. Insurance companies do not pay any liability in this case. May be unfair , but law is that way only.

By: Chris Conner

Chris Conner — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 07:04:14 +0000

Sam has a point, it boils down to a Force majeure clause.

Force majeure, also known as cas fortuity or casus fortuitus, is a legal term found in insurance contracts that details the insurance policy of the consumer when it comes to extraordinary or natural events such as hurricanes, typhoons, wars, and others. This term often develops into a clause in an insurance contract. This clause details that parties involved in the contract, both consumer and insurance provider, are free from liability in the event of force majeure.

By: don

don — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 13:35:38 +0000

So, Sam, when the wind blows down a huge tree that totals your car, you do not expect to be covered?

By: Ken Gibala

Ken Gibala — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:01:07 +0000

Nonsense. There is no such exclusion in anyolicy sold in the USA.

By: Doug King

Doug King — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 05:53:58 +0000

The issue here is that Fisker is claiming all the cars at the port were waiting for the cooling fan replacement, and thus constituted “temporary storage … including deviation and delay, until safely delivered” that still falls under the Transit Coverage.

The thing is we now know Karma production stopped last July at the latest, and those cars might have been sitting at that port for months (possibly even before the August cooling fan recall). It’s likely they didn’t have a specific destination and were just waiting due to soft demand. So I don’t see how Fisker can claim what appears to be indefinite storage at the port as “in transit.”