Confirmation Of Insurance-Release Of Liability: Fill & Download for Free

Without knowing the “full story”, I have to ask… what kind of insurance? Workers Comp, General Liability??Don’t take his word for it. Ask for a Certificate of Insurance from each carrier. Then call the agent for the carrier and confirm that it’s still in force. Then, ask the agent to call you if anything changes. And then, call yourself periodically.Also, start asking (if you haven’t already) for lien releases from him, his subs, and his suppliers. If he refuses, withhold future payments until he provides them. He can squawk all he wants. You’re under no obligation to make further payments until the releases are received and verified.You might want to consider joint checks to everyone from this point on anyway…

I had a minor car accident that I did not cause. The oncoming driver did not drive, drove in the opposite direction and smashed my rearview mirror. He left the scene of the accident.But: I have an on-board camera at the front and rear, and the record was the legible registration number of the culprit and the obvious course of the accident (the culprit's vehicle crossed the dividing line in the middle of the road). The on-board camera is not only legal in the Czech Republic, but its recording can be used as evidence before the authorities, in court and for the insurance company.In addition, a witness who followed me stopped at the scene of the accident.Because the perpetrator of the accident passed, we called the police. The police arrived (we waited 2 hours because they just had a shift of services), took measurements, took photos and copied the recordings from both on-board cameras to their laptop.I waited 2 days for confirmation of participation in the accident and I had to constantly remind the police officer and send him messages after his colleagues. The problem was said to be that the culprit has not yet presented a green card .... Of course, he did not present it when his vehicle did not have a compulsory liability, as I found out in the database of the Czech Insurers' Bureau.With the received confirmation of participation in the traffic accident, I turned to the Czech Insurers' Bureau and sent it the required information about the place, time and course of the accident, participating vehicles, contact details of the witness and camera recordings of both cameras as evidence of my claim about the accident. .Everything seemed to go smoothly now. I received a call from a company acting as an independent liquidator, which is authorized by the Czech Office of Insurers to resolve an insured event in accordance with a certain provision of Czech law.As my vehicle was partly financed by an interest-free loan and the credit company made the grant of the loan conditional on the binding of the indemnity in its favor and the obligation to inform it of any insured event, I contacted the call center of the lending company and described the situation. And here began the first troubles. The operator did not understand the situation at all. I have said three times that the culprit has not agreed on liability, and three times she has advised me to contact the culprit's insurance company. I therefore said that there was no culprit insurance company, that I was dealing with the Czech Insurers' Bureau. To do so, she recommended that I contact my insurance company, where I have arranged accident insurance.So I decided to communicate by e-mail so that the experts from the lending company would be able to read the written text, think it over, search for the aforementioned Czech Insurers' Bureau in the law, in the Commercial Register and therefore better prepare the answer. The result was the same, although we exchanged several emails there and back. In the end, I was promised that someone from the department would contact me to deal with it. Nobody contacted me.On the day of the repair, I filled out a web application form for devinance (permission to the insurance company to pay me compensation). As it was clear that filling in the form was not enough to provide all relevant information (for example, there were only options for compensation: accident insurance, windshield insurance, liability insurance and others and the Czech Insurers' Bureau was not included in the selection of insurance companies), I provided missing information by e-mail, again with a detailed description of the situation. Here it must be admitted that I made the mistake of not attaching the e-mail I received from a company authorized by the Czech Bureau of Insurers - I could have done that.I received permission to pay compensation, which was addressed to an insurance company that has nothing to do with the matter. However, the company responsible for dealing with the damages assured me that it did not matter.As soon as the compensation officer returned from leave (I received a reply to the second e-mail informing her when she would be in the office), I tried to contact her and asked if she already had everything she needed together so that they could send me my money. I got the info that they have everything from me, but unfortunately the police did not provide them with complete documentation on the culprit's vehicle, including photo documentation, so unfortunately I will have to wait for the result of the misdemeanor proceedings.I objected that according to the Compulsory Liability Act, the insurance company (or the Czech Insurers' Bureau) is obliged to conduct its own investigation independently of the misdemeanor proceedings and that it has a period of three months from the day the injured party reported the accident. I got into a dispute, but I looked for the Constitutional Court's finding and the ombudsman's press release, which they agreed with me. So I called again, and I was already shouting: I was upset that they were leading me by the nose and that they were making excuses for a dysfunctional communication with the police, which I could not influence or control in any way.I turned to the authorities - the ombudsman and the Czech National Bank as the supervisory body.Soon (perhaps the same day) her superior clerk called me and liked to ask the police again for the missing documentation. The next day I received a message that they had the missing documentation, but one small thing prevents reimbursement: Permission to reimburse the damage from the lending company is not addressed to them. I therefore asked them to communicate this matter themselves with the lending company, because I failed to convince it of the existence of the Czech Insurers' Bureau and I am not sure whether the situation will repeat itself. The next day I received a message that the damage would be paid to me.But it cost me a lot of energy and nerves.My experience with a lending company led me to repay the loan early. I only took it to have a sufficient financial reserve in case of unforeseen adverse events. But in the meantime, I have amassed the reserve and assessed the difficulties in communicating with the credit company as a greater risk.I consider it a reconnaissance by fighting. For the next time, I would like to prepare for a situation where the insurance company is making excuses for the police. Complaining to the police directorate asking them to investigate? Someone is infringing on my rights, but I don't have enough evidence to determine if it's the police or the insurance company. Which authority to turn to?

Yes, it is bad reporting.Fortune did not verify basic facts, made serious allegations based on their incorrect assumption of those facts, rushed an article to publication without a burning need to do so and made up statements of materiality that did not occur in the SEC filing from Tesla.First off, what articles are we talking about from Fortune?June 30 - Regulators Examine a Fatal Crash With Tesla's Autopilot - This article is basic reporting. It’s not the article Tesla reacted to. It’s the earliest article on the subject and came out the day that Tesla first posted notice of the fatality.July 2 - Fatal Tesla Crash Suggests Autopilot ‘Blind Spot’ - This article starts with reference to the potential that the Tesla driver might have been watching a video but moves on to a common supposition regarding a ‘blind spot’ in the sensors which is very reasonable to question. Once again, not the article that Tesla reacted to.July 3 - Assessing Tesla Fatality's Impact On Driverless Cars - This article concurs with the consensus that Autopilot was not the proximate cause of the collision but that two human drivers made separate significant errors which the automation did not prevent from causing the collision. It reasonably raises the question of the beta status of Autopilot and whether this will have an impact on legal liability.July 5 - Elon Musk Says Autopilot Death 'Not Material' to Tesla Shareholders - This is the first article which raised Tesla hackles. This article pointed out that Tesla sold $2 billion USD in Tesla stock in public offering on May 18, 11 days after the collision, without having mentioned the fatality. The date of May 18 is important in the timeline, as Fortune interpreted ‘immediately’ as stated by Tesla as effectively the day after collision, although Tesla did not state that. It asserts that Tesla knew that the collision occurred under autopilot on May 7, that the fatality was material to the stock sale and to shareholders and that Tesla consciously withheld it. Fortune decided that this interpretation of the timeline of events and materiality constituted a story which must be made public before receiving input from Tesla, something that they tried to gain on July 4th, an American holiday. Note, the article did not say that Autopilot was at fault, just that Autopilot was being used at the time of the collision.July 6 - Tesla Said an Autopilot Crash Would Be 'Material' Before CEO Elon Musk Said It Wasn't - In this piece, the day after the July 5 piece, Fortune asserted that Tesla’s SEC filing (quoted and linked below), makes it clear that Tesla believed that “even a single incident” related to Autopilot would be material and so Tesla was explicitly misleading investors.The actual timeline associated with events is very important, and very pertinent to the discussion of whether Fortune’s reporting was bad or not.May 7 - Collision occurs.May 16 - Tesla becomes aware that a fatality occurred in the accident, may or may not have known that Autopilot was involved (it’s unclear in Tesla’s public statement) and notifies the NHTSA.May 18 - Tesla releases stock for public sale and sells $2 billion. This release would have been underway for months.May 18 - On the same day, Tesla sends an investigator to Florida to look at the crash site, inspect the car and pull the driver logs.Last week of May - Tesla completes its internal review. One assumes that it shared the findings with the NHTSA, but this is unstated.June 29 - NHTSA informs Tesla that it will be conducting a preliminary evaluation of the performance of Autopilot in the collision.June 30 - Tesla publishes the announcement of the fatality and the NHTSA investigation on its blog in A Tragic Loss.June 30 - Fortune publishes its news reporting piece.July 2 - Fortune publishes a bit more depth and questions regarding blind spot.July 4 - Fortune decides the piece on the May 18 stock release is immediate news that must be published on July 5. Note that there is no external cause apparent for this deadline on their behalf, which is relevant to my opinion on this. They do not appear to be asking confirmation about the timeline, but for Tesla’s opinion on the materiality, in other words, they do not appear to have asked for confirmation of the facts but for a quote from Tesla regarding the opinion piece.July 5 - Fortune publishes the first piece asserting that this was material.July 6 - Fortune publishes the second piece, citing the SEC filing claiming that it contradicted Tesla’s comments regarding materiality.July 6 - Tesla publishes its response to Fortune’s allegations and assertions on its blog, emailing the full response to Fortune as well in Misfortune.So what is relevant out of these facts and timeline from a reporting perspective that would make Fortune’s articles bad reporting? Four separate things:The timeline - Fortune never confirmed the date when Tesla informed the NHTSA, when it knew Autopilot was engaged and didn’t appear to ask about it.The assumption of a timeline and its relevance to the stock filing - Fortune leapt to the conclusion that Tesla knew that Autopilot was engaged 11 days before the filing and didn’t tell shareholders. Per the timeline, Tesla sent an investigator to Florida on the same day as the stock release to get the logs and didn’t finish its analysis until two weeks later. This adds an assumption of explicitly withholding information that is material to shareholders that does not appear to be supported by the timeline, but to have been assumed by Fortune.The statement that the SEC filing indicated that “even a single incident” related to Autopilot would be material. - The SEC filing says no such thing, merely stating in a boilerplate section “We also may face similar claims related to any misuse or failures of new technologies that we are pioneering, including autopilot in our vehicles”. There is no statement that a single incident related to Autopilot would be considered material. This is a complete fabrication on Fortune’s part. “Single” appears multiple times in the filing, but related to suppliers, batteries and the recall due to a single unit with a defective seat belt. See below for the full section of the boilerplate and the link to the filing.Fortune’s perception for a need for immediate publication - Fortune attempted to get a usable pull quote on July 4 for a July 5 publication of a very serious charge. There was no particular timeliness to this story. The fatality had occurred two months before, the report of Autopilot’s involvement several days before and two articles by Fortune had already reported on the matter. Fortune rushed this publication out without verifying basic facts and asserted that Tesla intentionally withheld material information for two weeks before a stock issuance.Fortune’s reporting was bad. Its fact checking was bad. Its haste was bad and unnecessary given the nature of the allegations that they were making. Its assumptions based on its faulty and unverified understanding of the timeline were bad. Its reading of the SEC filing and assertions related to what Tesla said and didn’t say were bad.Fortune has the egg on its face in this exchange, in my opinion, rushing to judgment and allegations. They thought they had a smoking gun, but didn’t do due diligence.—————-Full text of the SEC filing related sectionWe may become subject to product liability claims, which could harm our financial condition and liquidity if we are not able to successfully defend or insure against such claims.Product liability claims could harm our business, prospects, operating results and financial condition. The automobile industry experiences significant product liability claims and we face inherent risk of exposure to claims in the event our vehicles do not perform as expected resulting in personal injury or death. We also may face similar claims related to any misuse or failures of new technologies that we are pioneering, including autopilot in our vehicles and our Tesla Energy products. A successful product liability claim against us with respect to any aspect of our products could require us to pay a substantial monetary award. Our risks in this area are particularly pronounced given the limited number of vehicles and energy storage products delivered to date and limited field experience of our products. Moreover, a product liability claim could generate substantial negative publicity about our products and business and would have material adverse effect on our brand, business, prospects and operating results. We self-insure against the risk of product liability claims, meaning that any product liability claims will have to be paid from company funds, not by insurance.tsla-10q_20160331.htm