Why do insurance companies still use the wording "Act of God"?

Question

I noticed in my policy they don't cover "Acts of God" (referring to God-provoked events like floods & earthquakes). I'm an atheist... so couldn't I challenge this in court, forcing the insurance company to prove God exists (or else cover me for damages?)

Answer 1

Act of God or act of nature is a legal term[1] for events outside of human control, such as sudden floods or other natural disasters, for which no one can be held responsible. This does not protect those who put others in danger of acts of God through negligence, such as a camp counselor who instructs a group of children on a hike to stand under a tree to escape a lightning storm.

In the law of contracts, an "act of God" may be interpreted as an implied defense under the rule of impossibility, i.e., the promise is discharged because of unforeseen, naturally occurring events that were unavoidable and which would result in insurmountable delay, expense or other material breach. In other contracts, such as indemnification, an act of God may be no excuse, and in fact may be the central risk assumed by the promisor, e.g., flood insurance or crop insurance; the only variables being the timing and extent of the damage. In many cases, failure by way of ignoring obvious risks due to "natural phenomena" will not be sufficient to excuse performance of the obligation, even if the events are relatively rare, e.g., Y2K problems in computers. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, §2-615, failure to deliver goods sold may be excused by an "act of God" if the absence of such act was a "basic assumption" of the contract, but has made the delivery commercially "impracticable."

In the law of torts, an act of God may be asserted as a type of intervening cause, the lack of which would have avoided the cause or diminished the result of liability (e.g., but for the earthquake, the old, poorly constructed building would be standing). However, foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes may still raise liability. For example, a bolt of lightning strikes a ship carrying volatile compressed gas, resulting in the expected explosion. Liability may be found if the carrier did not use reasonable care to protect against sparks -- regardless of their origins. Similarly, strict liability could defeat a defense for an act of God where the defendant has created the conditions under which any accident would result in harm. For example, a long-haul truck driver takes a shortcut on a back road and the load is lost when the road is destroyed in an unforeseen flood. Other cases (and the preferred federal rule in the United States) find that a common carrier is not liable for the unforeseeable forces of nature. Memphis & Charlestown RR Co. v. Reeves, 1870, 77 U.S. 176.

Another example is that of "rainmaker" Charles Hatfield who was hired in 1915 by the city of San Diego to fill the Morena reservoir to capacity with rainwater for $10,000. The region was soon flooded by heavy rains, bursting the reservoir's dam, killing nearly 20 people, destroying 110 bridges (leaving 2), knocking out telephone and telegraph lines, and causing an estimated $3,500,000 in damage in total. When the city refused to pay him (he had forgotten to sign the contract), he sued the city. The floods were ruled an act of God, excluding him from liability but also from payment.

Answer 2

lol.
you must have very deep pockets.
with repect to the insurance contract the term "act of god" refers to for events outside of human control for which no one can be held responsible.

A meteor strikes your car. You file a claim. The insurance carrier denies your claim. They say "act of god" You take the insurance company to court and argue, "I dont believe in god, therefore the 'act of god' defense is not valid?" The universe, cause and effect or fate, caused this rock to slam into my vehicle..." You have no defense. You did not exclude coverage, so you owe me."

lol.
I guess anything is possible in america...

Answer 3

Given the close ties between the courts and belief in god I think your arguement would not be taken to seriously. Although you would probably be the subject of a joke or two at a social gathering of judges.

Answer 4

I have been in the insurance industry for 20 years, and I've never seen the wording "Act of God" in any policy.

Would you please specify the company and form number, and the page & paragraph of the form which uses this wording? And I'll give you my email address if you'll scan & email it to me . . .because frankly, I don't think it exists. It's too vague, and would never stand up in court. So I think you're making this up.

Answer 5

Nope, it's a mute point. It would make about as much sense as having a funeral for you when you die. You would be all dressed up with no where to go. BTW God does exist whether you chose to believe or not. It's your prerogative to be wrong.

Answer 6

I though insurance companies were gods

Answer 7

Oh please, smart guy. Everyone knows that Act of God means whether you believe in God or not. Do you worship the god "Litigia" the god of frivolous lawsuits?

Answer 8

To avoid paying out

Answer 9

Because it is a vague term that they can apply to your policy to get out of paying you.

Answer 10

so they don t have to pay their in the business for profit .if they payed for all damages there would be no profit so to sum it up they don t care for anything but your money