▲ 309 ▼ Tourist climbs Brussels statue, breaks it (www.bbc.com) submitted 3 years ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml 60 comments fedilink hide all child comments The statue, outside the Brussels stock exchange, had just been restored at great cost.
[–] TheWoozy@lemmy.world 34 points 3 years ago (5 children) I'm not aware of insurance that covered illegal acts. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] maniacal_gaff@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Wait you guys don't have murder insurance?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago Not rich enough.. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 3 points 3 years ago Although I'm only vaguely aware of the German laws, I don't think other EU nations' laws differ significantly. Here's the corresponding law: The insurer shall not be obligated to effect payment if the policyholder has intentionally and unlawfully caused the loss suffered by the third party. Source: Since this was clearly negligence, I think they would be fine. After all, they didn't intend to damage the statue. Gross negligence is still negligence. permalink fedilink source parent [–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 3 years ago That's just the purge with extra steps. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Norgur@kbin.social -2 points 3 years ago liability insurance. In Germany, there are many that contractually agree to not refuse payment when the liablity occured out of gross negligence, which this would be by German standards... Yet... you were aware that this was a somewhat sarcastic remark and not me actually giving insurance advice, right? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] maniacal_gaff@lemmy.world 10 points 3 years ago (1 child) Wait you guys don't have murder insurance?? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 years ago Not rich enough.. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yetAnotherUser@feddit.de 3 points 3 years ago Although I'm only vaguely aware of the German laws, I don't think other EU nations' laws differ significantly. Here's the corresponding law: The insurer shall not be obligated to effect payment if the policyholder has intentionally and unlawfully caused the loss suffered by the third party. Source: Since this was clearly negligence, I think they would be fine. After all, they didn't intend to damage the statue. Gross negligence is still negligence. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 1 point 3 years ago That's just the purge with extra steps. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Norgur@kbin.social -2 points 3 years ago liability insurance. In Germany, there are many that contractually agree to not refuse payment when the liablity occured out of gross negligence, which this would be by German standards... Yet... you were aware that this was a somewhat sarcastic remark and not me actually giving insurance advice, right? permalink fedilink source parent