Yes, Typically, If you changed companies without any lapse in coverage, the company or your agent will have maintained your retroactive date. If so, then you are covered by your current policy. If you had a lapse in coverage between insurance companies, then you may have lost your retro-date resulting in no coverage under your current policy for losses that occurred prior to that time.
Look at you policy declarations page for the term "Retro Date". Any claims presented for occurrences after this date will be covered under the current policy, even if it was over 15 years ago and regardless of who your insurer was at the time.
It is very important to maintain our retroactive coverage date when changing companies with professional liability insurance.
Yes. Either you were covered by the tail coverage you purchased when changing to the new company (effectively converting that original policy from claims made to occurrence), or you set up the new policy with dates such that claims made in year 15 from occurrences happening in the prior policy were still covered. Taking the latter course would mean that you weren't paying significantly less for coverage in the first year you made that change. Please ask again if you have a follow up question regarding this scenario.
The law of large numbers is a principle of probability and statistics.
It states that as a sample size increases, its mean will get closer to the average of the whole population.
Deceptive and unfair laws apply to ordinary businesses in order to protect each from malicious competition. They also exist to protect consumers from being taken advantage of.
The child's parents should want to pursue a liability claim against any, and every party involved in the child's injury. The question as to whether the neighbor will ultimately be relieved of liability, because the child was first and foremost, in the direct custody of the day care business is a question for the court. If the child wandered onto the neighbor's property, there is a first a issue of negligent supervision that the day care center will need to defend themselves against. It is likely that the negligent supervision was the proximate cause of the injury. However, the lack of supervision might be seen as a contributing cause, if there was "conduct" on the part of the neighbor that also contributed to the injury. There are not enough facts in this question to really answer it.
Depends upon what your landlord say but I would suggest 10,000,000 Plus. Depends upon what your landlord say but I would suggest 10,000,000 Plus.