The statue, outside the Brussels stock exchange, had just been restored at great cost.

      • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Although I’m only vaguely aware of the German laws, I don’t think other EU nations’ laws differ significantly.

        Here’s the corresponding law:

        The insurer shall not be obligated to effect payment if the policyholder has intentionally and unlawfully caused the loss suffered by the third party.

        Source:

        Since this was clearly negligence, I think they would be fine. After all, they didn’t intend to damage the statue. Gross negligence is still negligence.

      • Norgur@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        liability insurance. In Germany, there are many that contractually agree to not refuse payment when the liablity occured out of gross negligence, which this would be by German standards… Yet… you were aware that this was a somewhat sarcastic remark and not me actually giving insurance advice, right?

    • ThatHermanoGuy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Let’s hope he doesn’t and they sue him for everything he’s worth for the next 30 years.