Understanding Acts of God

bobcat

bobcat

Well-known Member
Location
Northern Calif
I have wondered for some time why insurance companies include clauses in their contracts to limit coverage for what are considered Acts of God, when no one has proved that "God" did it, or even exists.

Many contracts have force majeure clauses—meaning "superior force", and some attribute them to God, and the coverage can vary from policy to policy.
It would seem that if a policy denied coverage due to something considered an Act of God, it could get a bit murky.

If a neighbor's tree gets blown over in a windstorm and it falls on my house, did God do it, or was it negligence from not trimming it. Who would know.
If a severe hail storm damages my car, is it God's fault or mine for not parking it in the garage.
If a dilapidated warehouse collapses during an earthquake and injures bystanders, the owner may claim an act of God caused the building to fall. However, the insurer may deny the claim, and there may be no recourse in court because the owner did not take reasonable care to maintain the structural integrity of the building.
It is my understanding that the NBA even has contracts that can limit payments due to an Act of God, such as an epidemic.
IDK, it seems like when in doubt, blame it on God even if you aren't a believer.
 

The term "act of God" was, for many years, generally accepted to define natural events beyond human control, but coverage for such events may have been challenged in the courts for the very reasons you gave, so those are good points.

My current homeowner's policy does not contain that language. It exhaustively details events that are covered and not covered, and under what circumstances. It seems like every year my homeowner's policy gets more and more bogged down with such detail.
 
Last edited:
MACKTEXAS said:
The term "act of God" was, for many years, generally accepted to define natural events beyond human control, but coverage for such events may have been challenged in the courts for the very reasons you gave, so those are good points.

My current homeowner's policy does not contain that language. It exhaustively details events that are covered and not covered, and under what circumstances. It seems like every year my homeowner's policy gets more and more bogged down with such detail.
Click to expand...
My insurer (and others) uses drones to check out my property. Last year it cost me $6000. to have trees trimmed to their satisfaction.
 

Traditionally, act of God is stated and assumed rather than Act of nature. My insurance doesn't use God in it. Even if God isn't proven, most people believe in God, so it doesn't matter to insurance.
 
Doubt any insurance corporation lawyers still allow use of that term in this era though older policies carrying forward might.

Off topic but related, it is interesting how there has been much recent news of the difficulty some mortgaged homeowners are now facing paying for insurance plus inflated state/local taxes that unexpectedly grates against the old wisdom that homes were great lifelong investments.

Especially ominous for those many in credit debt with high monthly expenditures versus income. Of course, The American Way, promoted for decades by our banks and financial corporations for self-serving reasons, is an in debt credit lifestyle in order to enjoy a list of material benefits and standard cultural desires and yearnings.

Though never wealthy, this frugal person has never used credit nor loans and have never even seen his credit score rating even if such exists. But do have a Platinum level credit card so bank like's me haha regardless.
 
I guess it just seems strange that if a tornado levels a town, or a hurricane or lightning sparked wildfire devastates an area killing inhabitants, to call it an Act of God seems to imply that God did it intentionally.

It also seems strange to me to have "In God We Trust" on our currency. There have been numerous challenges to remove it, but it is still there. Why would we have that phrase on money anyway? The Bible often has negative things to say about money and riches, so I would think associating money with God would be a rather odd pairing. JMO
 
bobcat said:
It also seems strange to me to have "In God We Trust" on our currency. There have been numerous challenges to remove it, but it is still there. Why would we have that phrase on money anyway? The Bible often has negative things to say about money and riches, so I would think associating money with God would be a rather odd pairing. JMO
Click to expand...
I understand what you posted about the Bible, so I'm not disputing it. But wherever the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" appear (on currency, on a pad of paper, or elsewhere) the message is consistent with how those feel who do believe in God, which is: their trust is to be in God rather than money or material things.

Aside from that, our currency does not identify who "we" is. It implies the people of the nation collectively, but it seems to have little meaning or authority, since our government cannot dictate where or with whom we as individuals place our trust.

In 2018, "a federal appeals court . . . said printing "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency is constitutional, citing its longstanding use and saying it was not coercive. [and] Judge Raymond Gruender said it also did not constitute an establishment of religion under a 2014 Supreme Court decision requiring a review of historical practices." above quotes from Reuters

I've been unable to find any official Supreme Court ruling, even though the SC has generally supported lower court rulings on this issue.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I've been unable to find any official Supreme Court ruling, even though the SC has generally supported lower court rulings on this issue.
Click to expand...

All the Inferior court cases I've found, the SC has declined to entertain them on appeal. The word "God" has been determined to be Secular in nature in other rulings.
 
MACKTEXAS said:
I understand what you posted about the Bible, so I'm not disputing it. But wherever the words "IN GOD WE TRUST" appear (on currency, on a pad of paper, or elsewhere) the message is consistent with how those feel who do believe in God, which is: their trust is to be in God rather than money or material things.

Aside from that, our currency does not identify who "we" is. It implies the people of the nation collectively, but it seems to have little meaning or authority, since our government cannot dictate where or with whom we as individuals place our trust.

In 2018, "a federal appeals court . . . said printing "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency is constitutional, citing its longstanding use and saying it was not coercive. [and] Judge Raymond Gruender said it also did not constitute an establishment of religion under a 2014 Supreme Court decision requiring a review of historical practices." above quotes from Reuters

I've been unable to find any official Supreme Court ruling, even though the SC has generally supported lower court rulings on this issue.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess whether one thinks it endorses God or a trust in God may be subjective. It just seemed rather strange to me to put it on money, but then again, maybe it was put there as a warning to not put your trust in it. IDK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top