Re: guess no one wants to touch on this?

More | Report Post

ok, so when you purchase a home through a loan at a
bank, and they require you to have insurance for protection
against natural hazards, and give you a booklet containing the
statement that this insurance is for covering natural hazards,
and that a natural hazard is anything caused by nature that harms
your health, who is reasponceable? and again, if a policy just
says it doesnt cover mold, I dont think it covers the toxic
molds/mycotoxins, "mold" is a word for regular non-toxic mold,
big difference. biochemicals used in warfare are considered a
natural bio hazard. mycotoxins are used in biochemical
warfare. On 3/13/06, Matt
wrote:
> Insurance is supposed to cover exactly what is outlined in your
> policy. It is not neccesarily a "catch all" coverage. If mold
> is not covered per the terms in the policy, then it is not
> covered. Just like if flooding is excluded from your policy,
> then you will not be compensated if a flood destroys your house.
> There is no bad faith about denying a claim based on occurance
> that is excluded in your policy.
>
> On 2/28/06, TMV wrote:
>> On 2/16/06, TMV wrote:
>>> Part of Insurance coverage is to protect you from natural
>>> hazards, right? natural hazards are anything produced by
>>> nature that harm your health.
>>> even if your policy says mold is not covered, there is a
>>> big difference between mold that is not produceing
>>> mycotoxins and molds that are. policys do not say they
>>> don't cover enviromental illnesses caused by mycotoxin
>>> produceing molds.
>>> mold is a act of nature, and toxic molds/molds that produce
>>> mycotoxins, is a natural hazard.
>>> So when you are exposed to toxic molds in your home, and
>>> have enviromental illness as a result of mold exposure,
>>> How can your claim be denied, and isn't this a act of bad
>>> faith?