Dave
22 May 2002, 15:28
Heard a couple of days ago that they had been ordered by the ACCC to pay claims for policies taken out by Ansett travellers last year after the'd denied them initially claiming the collapse was a forseeable event.
Begs the question, if it was forseeable, why'd they take the money from people in the first place if they had no intention of paying out a claim? Wouldn't that constitute fraud?
Begs the question, if it was forseeable, why'd they take the money from people in the first place if they had no intention of paying out a claim? Wouldn't that constitute fraud?