Not press release news, just from an interoffice memo at work. They're requesting leave sharing for this guy, and explained what happened. Name changed.
If he had hit the deer, and been responsible for the accident, the insurance companies would pay. To me, that is an act of nature. If he had hit the van, the insurance companies would pay. I can maybe see that if the deer, of it's own choosing, decided to ram him, it would be an act of nature. However, I think that if his accident is the result of a legitimate covered accident, it should be covered.
Keep in mind that this is the United States insurance system, so it's already all sorts of mixed up. So, insurance company's call, good or bad?
Okay, after getting over the fact that the deer hit him, and the general replay of events in my head, this seems ridiculous to me.Joe was involved in a deer vs. motorcycle accident(not his fault) the beginning of April. The deer actually hit Joe after being hit by a van coming at him. Because the deer hit Joe the insurance companies have deemed the accident an act of nature(they will not pay).
If he had hit the deer, and been responsible for the accident, the insurance companies would pay. To me, that is an act of nature. If he had hit the van, the insurance companies would pay. I can maybe see that if the deer, of it's own choosing, decided to ram him, it would be an act of nature. However, I think that if his accident is the result of a legitimate covered accident, it should be covered.
Keep in mind that this is the United States insurance system, so it's already all sorts of mixed up. So, insurance company's call, good or bad?