Act of God

[darkwinter]

Attended Leicester Skeptics in the Pub last night, and thoroughly enjoyed David's talk on the fascinating legal points relevant to scepticism. It was only a shame that the Q&A had to be so truncated due to certain trains that needed catching.

My partner Rachel was with me (her first SitP experience) and was considering asking about the legal term "act of god", as found on insurance documents etc. referring to unforeseen natural events. Not knowing anything much about the legal side of this matter, she was just interested in getting some clarification.

Now on my understanding, the term does not necessarily imply that these natural events have a supernatural monotheistic cause - it's just a phrase that is used almost as a figure of speech in these cases. But I'd be interested to know if there's anything else I've missed here - and I wonder if anyone's ever objected to the phrase due to its outwardly theistic nature.

It also allows me to point you at this hilarious video from Bill Bailey (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4tH2PkXLxGs).

"It's drizzling a bit now - is that an act of god? At what point does the rain reach a certain level beyond which it takes on the slightly more apocalyptic mantle of the Water-Based Punishment of the Lord?"

[Matt]

IN some ways it may be considered a quite atheist friendly phrase as act of God refers to events where nobody can be held responsible. To the atheist, "God" and "nobody" are somewhat interchangable. >:D

In a similar fashion...

God only knows == Nobody knows

[Gilbs]

In construction contracts it is the "operation of natural forces which human foresight can not reasonably be expected to anticipate" The test is a very high one, probably originally determined by precedent- so drizzle I am afraid wont cut it.

I don't particularly hold it is a theistic term because it is used in a legal context as an umbrella term for natural forces.
If you don't like it you could consider "Force Majeure"

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I've never understood exactly where severe storm ends and an act of god begins. I've always assumed that if a claim was refused, eventually it would be down to the ombudsman or FSA or whoever is the regulator for general insurance to choose sides if a complaint was persued.

I'd say insurance companies have similar definitions, but not sure if there is an industry standard one. I could be wrong though.

[Trinoc]

Insurance companies have a very simple rule: all policy cover becomes void on submission of a claim.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Insurance companies have a very simple rule: all policy cover becomes void on submission of a claim.

Else multiply next year's premium X 2

[Trinoc]

Else multiply next year's premium X 2
Depending on whether or not the claim is for more than a year's premium.

[Tim the Mage]

I've never understood exactly where severe storm ends and an act of god begins. I've always assumed that if a claim was refused, eventually it would be down to the ombudsman or FSA or whoever is the regulator for general insurance to choose sides if a complaint was persued.

I'd say insurance companies have similar definitions, but not sure if there is an industry standard one. I could be wrong though.

The severe storm becomes an act of god only when it has an effect that might lead to an insurance claim. To put it another way my stiff breeze might be your act of god.

Force Majeure isn't the same thing as it would encompass human acts such as me blowing the crap out of your house with my tank (unless that act took place as a result of war since that brings in a whole new chapter of insurance excuses).

[Jack of Kent]

An "Act of God" is, from a legal perspective, a carve out.

You usually find it in contracts. A contract is an agreement between parties as to rights and obligations (which would not exist but for the contract), and what allocation of risk each party accepts.

There are certain risks which parties will not accept, and an "Act of God" is one such risk.

As a contractual term it means whatever the court believes the parties intended it to mean (as precedent bites on statutory terms rather contractual terms).

That said, if there's a dispute, a court should be strict in allowing a party to rely on such a get-out, as such an exclusion should always be construed against the party seeking to rely on it.

This is the theory, of course, as it is remarkable what insurers try and get away with. They seem to forget insurance is about risk, and not premiums without payout...