Ark Encounter Sues Insurers for Not Covering $1,000,000 Worth of . . . . . . . Rain Damage

Skwim said:

So, just desserts or not?

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

"I swear to Jesus this is true: Ark Encounter is suing its insurance providers for not covering — wait for it — rain damage.

Noah thought ahead. But not Ken Ham, apparently.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, Ark Encounter, which opened in 2016, suffered the effects of a heavy rain that began in May of 2017 and continued for several months.

That rain created a landslide which damaged a major access road to the Ark, rendering it “unsafe and unfit for use.” It cost about $1,000,000 for Ark Encounter (and its parent company, Crosswater Canyon) to fix the road. Naturally, they wanted their insurers to pay for it.

But the [five] insurers said no. According to them, their contract with Ark Encounter excluded payments for “correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship.” Ark Encounter said that clause didn’t apply because “land improvements” (which is how they classified the road fixes) were an exception to that rule.

The insurers paid for some of the damage that they felt they covered, but that’s it. They don’t want to pay more. Now Ken Ham’s group is suing for the rest.

The Courier Journal already knows you’re laughing about this:

… to Ark Encounter’s lawyer, Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, at the Cincinnati firm Keating, Muething & Klekamp, the suit is no laughing matter. “We are not going to comment to the press on this case,” she said.​

Please comment, Ken. For once, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.
source

​

So, just desserts or not?

.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

.

"I swear to Jesus this is true: Ark Encounter is suing its insurance providers for not covering — wait for it — rain damage.

View attachment 29311​

Noah thought ahead. But not Ken Ham, apparently.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, Ark Encounter, which opened in 2016, suffered the effects of a heavy rain that began in May of 2017 and continued for several months.

That rain created a landslide which damaged a major access road to the Ark, rendering it “unsafe and unfit for use.” It cost about $1,000,000 for Ark Encounter (and its parent company, Crosswater Canyon) to fix the road. Naturally, they wanted their insurers to pay for it.

But the [five] insurers said no. According to them, their contract with Ark Encounter excluded payments for “correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship.” Ark Encounter said that clause didn’t apply because “land improvements” (which is how they classified the road fixes) were an exception to that rule.

The insurers paid for some of the damage that they felt they covered, but that’s it. They don’t want to pay more. Now Ken Ham’s group is suing for the rest.

The Courier Journal already knows you’re laughing about this:

… to Ark Encounter’s lawyer, Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, at the Cincinnati firm Keating, Muething & Klekamp, the suit is no laughing matter. “We are not going to comment to the press on this case,” she said.
​

Please comment, Ken. For once, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.
source​

So, just desserts or not?

.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

.

"I swear to Jesus this is true: Ark Encounter is suing its insurance providers for not covering — wait for it — rain damage.

View attachment 29311​

Noah thought ahead. But not Ken Ham, apparently.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, Ark Encounter, which opened in 2016, suffered the effects of a heavy rain that began in May of 2017 and continued for several months.

That rain created a landslide which damaged a major access road to the Ark, rendering it “unsafe and unfit for use.” It cost about $1,000,000 for Ark Encounter (and its parent company, Crosswater Canyon) to fix the road. Naturally, they wanted their insurers to pay for it.

But the [five] insurers said no. According to them, their contract with Ark Encounter excluded payments for “correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship.” Ark Encounter said that clause didn’t apply because “land improvements” (which is how they classified the road fixes) were an exception to that rule.

The insurers paid for some of the damage that they felt they covered, but that’s it. They don’t want to pay more. Now Ken Ham’s group is suing for the rest.

The Courier Journal already knows you’re laughing about this:

… to Ark Encounter’s lawyer, Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, at the Cincinnati firm Keating, Muething & Klekamp, the suit is no laughing matter. “We are not going to comment to the press on this case,” she said.
​

Please comment, Ken. For once, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.
source​

So, just desserts or not?

.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

.

"I swear to Jesus this is true: Ark Encounter is suing its insurance providers for not covering — wait for it — rain damage.

View attachment 29311​

Noah thought ahead. But not Ken Ham, apparently.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, Ark Encounter, which opened in 2016, suffered the effects of a heavy rain that began in May of 2017 and continued for several months.

That rain created a landslide which damaged a major access road to the Ark, rendering it “unsafe and unfit for use.” It cost about $1,000,000 for Ark Encounter (and its parent company, Crosswater Canyon) to fix the road. Naturally, they wanted their insurers to pay for it.

But the [five] insurers said no. According to them, their contract with Ark Encounter excluded payments for “correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship.” Ark Encounter said that clause didn’t apply because “land improvements” (which is how they classified the road fixes) were an exception to that rule.

The insurers paid for some of the damage that they felt they covered, but that’s it. They don’t want to pay more. Now Ken Ham’s group is suing for the rest.

The Courier Journal already knows you’re laughing about this:

… to Ark Encounter’s lawyer, Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, at the Cincinnati firm Keating, Muething & Klekamp, the suit is no laughing matter. “We are not going to comment to the press on this case,” she said.
​

Please comment, Ken. For once, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.
source​

So, just desserts or not?

.

Click to expand...

Skwim said:

.

"I swear to Jesus this is true: Ark Encounter is suing its insurance providers for not covering — wait for it — rain damage.

View attachment 29311​

Noah thought ahead. But not Ken Ham, apparently.

According to the 13-page lawsuit, Ark Encounter, which opened in 2016, suffered the effects of a heavy rain that began in May of 2017 and continued for several months.

That rain created a landslide which damaged a major access road to the Ark, rendering it “unsafe and unfit for use.” It cost about $1,000,000 for Ark Encounter (and its parent company, Crosswater Canyon) to fix the road. Naturally, they wanted their insurers to pay for it.

But the [five] insurers said no. According to them, their contract with Ark Encounter excluded payments for “correcting design deficiencies or faulty workmanship.” Ark Encounter said that clause didn’t apply because “land improvements” (which is how they classified the road fixes) were an exception to that rule.

The insurers paid for some of the damage that they felt they covered, but that’s it. They don’t want to pay more. Now Ken Ham’s group is suing for the rest.

The Courier Journal already knows you’re laughing about this:

… to Ark Encounter’s lawyer, Amanda Brooke Stubblefield, at the Cincinnati firm Keating, Muething & Klekamp, the suit is no laughing matter. “We are not going to comment to the press on this case,” she said.
​

Please comment, Ken. For once, I can’t wait to hear what you have to say.
source​

So, just desserts or not?

.

Click to expand...

Enoch07 said:

This topic has no reason to be in Evolution vs Creationism. Perhaps current events?

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Because believers in the Ark myth tend to be creationists as well. In fact I do not know of any believers in creationism that do not accept the Ark myth. The opposite is not necessarily so. There are some OEC's that do not accept the Ark myth but still belief in creationism.

Click to expand...

Enoch07 said:

I'll repost the same rebuttle.

It has nothing to do with a lawsuit between the park owner and insurance companies.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

Oh my! You don't know what a rebuttal is either. It is too funny.

Click to expand...

Enoch07 said:

Fixed it for ya. At least I know what English is though.

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

So sad. If you actually fixed it you would have only deleted the excessive "o". Sometimes my fingers bounce a bit.

Click to expand...

Enoch07 said:

You should retire for the night before you make it worse.
To vs. Too

Click to expand...

Subduction Zone said:

That you did not understand my correction of your mistaken correction is not surprising. You can't be serious that you have never heard the phrase:

"It is to laugh."

Click to expand...

Revoltingest said:

The subject of insurance....force majeure, co-insurance, waivers of subrogation, etc.
This is exciting!

Click to expand...

Enoch07 said:

Seriously,

Never heard of it in 41 years across spread across 2 continents 15 different countries, and countless states and cities.

Click to expand...