% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Chubb Corporation Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • forrestgrump55e forrestgrump55e Jul 24, 2011 2:40 PM Flag

    Collect the the claims. That's the business.

    Indeed, Forrest such issues are not new. They have pagued all seekers of justice since the origins of time have they not?

    “if the persons are not equal, they will not have equal shares; it is when equals possess or are allotted unequal shares, or persons not equal equal shares, that quarrels and complaints arise.” Nicomachean by Aristotle

    Just outcomes are made when all parties follow the rules of the organization and of the law. Comopanies are just fictional people who employ real people to do its work. Thus---All organizations are composed of people and are subject to the problem all people as individuals are subject to make. It is upper managements duty to ensure a culture of justice is maintained threw out an insurance company for by their very nature insurance companies are essential to the functioning of society. I hope this better explain the concerns I hold in this matter, for surely Chubb has considered such matters before. Thanks.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Forrest (or should I say Younger?) - did you forget to change your screenname before responding to your own message?

      The case you are citing is too vague for anyone to be able to make an intelligent comment about. Generally speaking, all claimants should be treated equal, but the way you described the case gives me pause. It sounds like Chubb was initially going to pay the claim, but then changed their mind midstream because of something they uncovered about the claimant. Just for argument's sake, let's say Chubb uncovered the fact that the third party claimant was a convicted felon who was found guilty of insurance fraud over a dozen times. If those were the facts, I would hope that Chubb would rethink their position and possibly refuse payment if a further investigation uncovered facts that warranted said action. I believe that there are certain cases where particular claimants should not be treated equally.

      Their business model is predicated on promptly paying legitimate, valid claims, which, as a shareholder, I obviously agree with. If they did not pay a claim in the case you reference, I suspect that something else was involved that you have not included in your description of the case that would warrant non-payment. As a shareholder I want Chubb to protect my money - as if it was their own - and they should not be paying it out on invalid claims.

      Best Regards,


      P.S. My hold sentiment is based on valuation. I would load up as much as possible if we got to 1.0x book.

    • Clear as mud there Forrest. But I understand what you are getting at. But are not insurance companies merely corporate stuctures which solely are obligated to maximize profits for its shareholders?

121.00-0.47(-0.39%)10:22 AMEDT