On Apr 11, 11:35 am, Neal Eckhardt <neckha...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:45:42 -0700 (PDT), Mary <mrfeath...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't understand why they think a trust or other non-human being
> >can't be a named insured. Companies are named insured all the time.
>
> >I mean, these people are working in the insurance industry, shouldn't
> >they know this stuff?
>
> I would agree, a trust can sustain a loss just like a company. There's
> no difference. Either you insure houses, or you don't.
What bothers me is that the point of creating a trust (or
incor****ating a business) is for this very thing: that the entity,
rather than the individual, be responsible (and/or insured.)
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
