Eduard's complaint:
September 21, 2013

Insurance Company: Hanover Insurance
Coverage Type: Business Insurance

• Claim Handling - Denial of Claim

Hanover Unit Manager Ms. Debra Brickner continues to provide no legal basis for not honoring the Insurance Contract with the Insured, Eduard Mato.
Ms. Brickner miss-interpreters exclusions to find any way possible to exclude coverage on Claim
No 15-00123725, Eduard Mato has filled.
To support her standing, Ms. Bricker provides the Dishonesty Exclusion to exclude coverage.
The insurance company hired a private investigator to investigate the case of theft of musical instrument owned by Eduard Mato and insured with Hanover.

The investigator concluded that the insured Eduard Mato was not in any way involved on the theft of the insured instrument.

Even the main investigator on the case hired by Hanover suggest that the insured's claim be fully covered ASAP as there in no fault associated with the insured on this case. (The e-mail of the main investigator send to the insurance company asking them, the insured's claim be fully valued can be provided on your request)

Hanover, Ms. Brickner continues to exclude coverage stating now that the Insured Eduard Mato has not been in any way involved on any dishonest acts but that the insured entrusted the instrument to the authorized dealer of the manufacturer, where the theft of the instrument took place. For such the claim cannot be honored.

The insured Eduard Mato provides the argument that sending the insured instrument or a vehicle to the Manufacturer's Authorized Dealer is the most common act one can do to repair replace the broken instrument and that the Dishonesty Exclusion dose not apply here.

The insured Eduard Mato provides real court rulings, decisions, that clearly state that the Dishonesty Exclusion, Ms. Bricker is miss-interpreting does not apply to exclude coverage where the insured is not in any way involved and when the party who commits theft is not authorized by the insured to commit such acts.

"The court observes that to read the dishonesty exclusion to exclude anyone and everyone to which insured granted a contractual right would render the policy nullity.

Thus, the court distinguished those authorized to act for an insured from those to whom an insured has merely entrusted property. Not

The phrase “anyone authorized to act for you” will not be applied where there is merely a general business relationship.

This is particularly so where the loss itself occurred due to an act taken without authorization from the insured or its agents, the court ruled".

In contrast, Hanover, Ms. Brickner is unable to find any legal argument to support their misinterpretation of the exclusion, because there are not any, but only states that the dishonesty exclusion apply to this case.

The insured presents real legal and logical evidence that the Dishonesty Exclusion does not apply on this case and the insurance company is intentionally misinterpreting exclusion to exclude coverage.

Such acts are not acceptable, not by the insured not by any court and legal Circles.

0 0

Tweet