Check my "Started Threads" for Equipment Exchange ads: https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/member.php/76158-Aniest
Hmm. "deliberately"
Now, there's a word...
2 kids under 2? Wow, congrats. "Busy" to say the least, haha!
You do realise an answer from Zach, another broker, or any random dude on CGN is exactly the same when it comes to actually holding any weight when it's time to actually cash in on that statement...
At that point if the underwriter tells you 'no, sorry it's not covered under your policy'... the words 'but Zach said' and 'but LeadMonkey on CGN said' and 'but Prime Minister Trudope said' will all hold exactly the same weight.
The ONLY way to know is to read the wording for yourself and then actually test it, then all the world will know for sure the supreme value (or lack thereof) of the policy they purchased.
To the broker's credit, I am glad Zach did what we asked of him and checked the policy wording and tried to apply the policy for the given scenarios... that's really all we were asking of the broker selling this policy.
He's right though when he says "When something isn't specifically covered or excluded in a policy I look at the wording to find you the best answer [...] As a broker I can only confidently tell you what the wording says."
Verba volant, scripta manent!
“When injustice becomes law, an armed rebellion becomes duty” ~ The Internet
LOL i'm so done with this pointless pissing contest.
I had a very simple question for Capri, and Zach gave me an adequate, informative answer. Coverage for this issue is not explicitly excluded. Done. Anyone with a pulse and half a brain can understand what that means, not sure why the armchair lawyers feel they have to chime in and explain the obvious as if we were some 5-year-old illiterate r*tards.
Hopefully it makes them feel important because it doesn't do much else.
Capri/Zach, feel free to clean and lock this thread before it gets out of hand. I can see the usual CGN trainwreck on the horizon.
Youza.