Sentences with phrase «defend you against that claim because»
In other words, when the injured person tries to sue you for the injuries your renters insurance can pay to defend you against that claim because the policy would pay for the loss if it were to be proven.
https://www.effectivecoverage.com/ Not exact matches
See also Lucy Barbour, «Competition watchdog ACCC head Rod Simms (sic) denies claims an «effects test» would be «economically dangerous» (ABC Rural, 18 August 2014), in which the ACCC Chairman defends the ACCC's proposed effects test (and is also reported as saying that the current case against Coles was brought under the unconscionable conduct provisions rather than under s 46 because the misuse of market power prohibitions is a law that exists only between competitors...)
Ukip has also been forced to defend itself against claims they barred a candidate from standing as a candidate in a local election because he was disabled.
Skyway «Network» elementary schools came out strong on Thursday, February 7, 2013 to defend their schools against the claim that many of them should be closed because Chicago Public Schools face an «underutilization crisis».
If it's a large injury, perhaps sustained because you were too anxious to get off the plane in lovely Oklahoma City and ran into someone, resulting in them falling straight into the airline counter, your liability coverage will defend you against that claim as well as paying the claim if it comes to that.
You'd also have a difficult time finding someone to defend you against the suit or claim, because you'd have to pay the lawyer several thousand dollars up front.
That coverage also defends you against those claims, so you don't have to pay out - of - pocket for a lawyer because it is covered by the policy.
In essence, this says that they will defend you against the claim for the time being, but they have not yet accepted liability for paying the claim because they don't have all of the information necessary to make that determination.
If the insurer could have defended you and you lose, they are unlikely to pay because you have prejudiced the situation against them by not allowing them to defend against the claim.
- Attribution makes a claim of fair use marginally easier to defend, because a failure to attribute would weigh heavily against you in the «likely effect on the market for the work» factor.
If your spouse successfully defended against your claim of adultery, you'd still be able to divorce on other grounds, but not because of the adultery.
The insurance company may say something like a settlement is being offered for «nuisance value,» or the amount that the insurance company is willing to pay to settle the claim because it would spend even more (on attorney's fees, court costs, expert witnesses, etc.) than the offered amount to defend against the «nuisance» of the victim's claim.
In a post titled, «A Tidal Wave of Crap,» Pattis suggests that it's time for attorneys to defend themselves against frivolous claims (Ambrogi reports that 62,000 were dismissed because the agency lacked jurisdiction or the complaint lacked facts constituting professional misconduct).
Your insurer has a duty to defend against those claims or suits, because they don't just affect you, they affect other policyholders and the company as well.
You'd also have a difficult time finding someone to defend you against the suit or claim, because you'd have to pay the lawyer several thousand dollars up front.
The insurance carrier can defend you against suits and pay those claims because you have a renters insurance policy.
In essence, this says that they will defend you against the claim for the time being, but they have not yet accepted liability for paying the claim because they don't have all of the information necessary to make that determination.
If the insurer could have defended you and you lose, they are unlikely to pay because you have prejudiced the situation against them by not allowing them to defend against the claim.
Because an insurer may have an obligation to at least defend a lawsuit in which excluded claims such as those based on mold or fraud are joined with other covered issues, you should immediately put your professional liability insurance carrier on notice from the date you first become aware of a possible malpractice claim against you.
It's far easier to launch a challenge against a board for their sales pricing data and claim their privacy argument is a smokescreen than to launch a lawsuit against Ontario's Land Registry System because I suspect they already know that's been tried several times and each time denial to that bulk information was successfully defended by Ontario's Privacy Commissioner.