Sentences with phrase «very well claim»

The railroad may very well claim that you are at fault.

By that logic I could very well claim YOU molested me...

«Morita and team have a very good claim.

You may feel that claims are outside of your control, but it is no coincidence that academies with the most interest in risk management and proactively taking and implementing risk advice are often those with the very best claims experience, and it is worth bearing in mind that any money left over from the insurance settlement can be retained and spent by the school.

2 — Some of the pvt life insurance companies do have very good claim settlement track record and they offer term plans at very competitive premium rates.

Pet owners are stashing away the cute pet Halloween costumes that may have very well claimed top prize in your store's costume contest, and are readying themselves for the holiday shopping blitz that seems to intensify each year.

Very good claim service and list of network hospitals and very easy or good customer service support

They boast of a very good claim settlement ratio amongst other private insurers.

1) Kotak with claim settlement ratio of 92 % and good solvency ratio and premium of rs. 11736 Kotak has a consistent claim settlement ratio of above 90 % for 3 consecutive years 2) PNB metlife with similar claim settlement ratio of Kotak and same premium of rs. 11781 PNB is a big nationalised bank and Metlife is one of the largest insurance companies in the world 3) Aegon life with claim settlement ratio of 89 % and premium of rs. 11172 Aegon is in partnership with bennett coleman company which is a times group company Aegon doesn't have a very good claim settlement ratio in the past but by paying an additional premium of 500rs you can get a waiver of future premiums on discovery of critical illness.

Max Life insurance has achieved a very good claim settlement ratio this year, 93.86 % and their pending claim ratio is 0.04 %.

It's all very well claiming that you're «a good leader» or «a team player», but that's not the right way to answer an interview question in 2018.

Not exact matches

By far, the oddest thing about Donald Trump's 1995 tax returns, a portion of which was published by The New York Times on Saturday, is not the massive $ 916 million loss — some 9,385 times as large as what was taken by the average filer who claimed a similar loss — but this: 1995 was actually a very good year for Trump, perhaps one of the best of his career.

The agency has been trying to make this better, or at least it has issued a report about making it better, but FDA approval is by its very nature anti-Valley, the opposite of moving fast and breaking things — which is why so many health trackers and similar devices (even apps) are very careful about their claims.

With years of experience in a particular industry, «these types of entrepreneurs are not only very well positioned to feel what is needed in the market — as they understand it perfectly — but they are also usually pretty good at executing their business as they easily earn their customers» and partners» trust because of their credibility and legitimacy,» claims Soussan.

Technology columnist Farhad Manjoo of The New York Times recently argued that the UBER model doesn't translate very well and can't be reliably applied to the thousands of businesses that have rapidly appeared in virtually every industry claiming to be the «UBER» of whatever.

«The benefits have been huge,» Jackson claims, including better crisis management, better work and a very low risk of burnout.

I'm not claiming that the 21 year old who comes in for an interview sporting a hoodie and torn jeans couldn't very well be the next Mark Zuckerberg.

Instead, she believes the government — along with advocacy groups — needs to do a better job helping consumers understand that most marketing claims, particularly those used on packaged, processed food, mean very little.

The whole thing can be a huge pain in the ass, and for multinationals who do not keep very good records of their China operations, they might simply be unable to support their claim.

Second, it is very easy for a vendor to claim, «We use natural language processing», and you will never know whether it really works, or is better than another vendor's NLP.

You know I find it odd that you only claim it's a fake post when it is blantantly psychotic, which you are very well known for around here from at least a year back when I first came to this blog.

When Colbert starts tweeting lies about that very politician and then claims they are not meant as factual statements it gives you a better sense of the real issue.

God using evolution to create shows way more time and dedication to the emergence of humans, but of course the fundamentalists know best and claim to KNOW that genesis was meant to be 100 % literal despite gaps and missing pieces translating from a very simplistic language into English.

I can not determine anything that is first person, and you very well may have good justified reasons for your belief, and all I can say is that I don't have evidence to justify accepting the claim.

What you are saying here is terrible, claiming to be special or a better person because you believe in something is very very ignorant.

I have a very good reason to believe that this person who calls IT - self HeavenSent is NOT who is claiming to be.

I think by boycotting and lashing out against them, gays and lesbians are doing the very thing they claim to be victims of, which means their behavior is no better than those they oppose.

In short, it seems to me that Christianity by its very nature must admit the claims of Enlightenment scholarship to a greater extent than does Judaism, and that it can survive the dissolving effect of those claims far better.

If the bacterium spent decades studying the words of Einstein, and had a portion of Einstein's very own essence (spirit) within it, well... yea, I gues the bacterium could very well make that claim.

Its easier to related to Muhammad than to Jesus or Buddha because he never claimed that he was of divine origin, he was as shocked at his revelation as anybody else, he frequently said many times «I'm a man amongst men,» he frequently said «all the good that happens comes from Allah and everything that is not good is my fault,» he's very human and that is what makes him relatable.

Similarly, Kekes (a nonbeliever) claims, religious theories that posit the goodness of creation run aground: The «very existence of evil... constitutes a reason against believing in a morally good order.»

They know very well that the second half of that claim cancels the first half.

But we maintain, on the contrary, that we know the Jesus of history very well, even if we do not have a precise and photographic account of his day - by - day activities; and the unique claim of Christianity is that in and by those events in the actual realm of historical happenedness, God is revealed — revealed, of course, in and under the conditions of history and human life, but revealed nonetheless.

Greeley knows that these are very broad strokes, and at several points he courteously says that he is not claiming that Catholicism is better than Protestantism; it is just different.

It is entirely possible that, at a time when very important decisions have to be made and acted upon for the good of humankind and the planet as a whole, far too many people will focus their attention on their own immediate vicinity and insist on claiming their individual right to act within it as they wish.

Society was by this time well prepared to accept this measure although it was claimed that it was not at all the same as marriage despite being modelled very closely on the Marriage Act.

On these grounds Matt.11.12 has a very strong claim to authenticity: it stands in the earliest stratum of this particular tradition and it reflects the attitude of Jesus to John rather than that of the early Church, to which he was at best the Forerunner (Mark 9.

He thought the best way to be a Christian and a writer was to try to be a very good writer (while, at the same time, avoiding any claim to being a good Christian).

No matter how much good the religion of Islam claims to uphold, there are some very dark chapters that MANY people follow.

Be very specific Chad, your credibility is near nil anyway, but when you make such a wide sweeping claim, you'd best be able to defend it.

You have presented some very detailed and specific claims as if they were well - documented facts.

The fact is that when you remove the invented deities who some claim have made rules as to our s e x ual activity, the stigma and guilt and shame drop away and we can get on to the very rewarding job of living and being good to one another.

«If I only let you see me when I'm «good» and «strong» and polished and «at the top», I undermine the very message that I claim to believe,» wrote Tchividjian.

These methods may very well be common outside of the Christian social media sphere, but the fact that they're common in it — among people who should claim to care about integrity — does smack of hypocrisy.

We don't know enough to make claims yet and it might very well be none of our business.

Edgar S. Brightman, who had himself been working for many years on the development of a nontraditional view of God, rejected Hartshorne's panentheism but praised other aspects of his view of God.35 Reinhold Niebuhr wrote a brief but very sympathetic review, 36 and John Bennett claimed that Hartshorne's was perhaps the best hypothesis about God available to contemporary theology.37 D. C. Macintosh found the book «exceptionally penetrating, stimulating, and instructive,» but by accusing Hartshorne of being too rationalistic he touched on what has been one of the major differences between Hartshorne and most other Whiteheadian theologians.38

The very things that claim and we presume are good for us may not be.

The jews just worship the god these folks are the prophets of, althou some claim jesus is the son of that very same god and therefore better — if a son of a god can die so easily, whats the point i ask you!

So where I disagree with Larison is his claim that «Conservatives actually know very well that they do not speak for a majority in this country, and they are also well aware that changes that would allow for more direct, plebiscitary democracy, whether in presidential elections or in passing legislation, would work to the detriment of their smaller states and their overall political interests.»

Nothing gets «proven» as it does in the hard sciences (and there is good reason to say that science doesn't actually «prove» nor does it claim to), but in more complicated systems, such as social, human ones, proof is very difficult (why should we not expect it to be so in theology also?).