EVE Search - CCP Failing to Reimburse

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP Failing to Reimburse

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:09:00 - [1] Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 18:12:31 Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 18:11:44 I recently Lost a FULLY insured Battleship. I still had the confirmation eve mail saying it was good for another 4 weeks. However... I didn't get the full ammount. I got the ammount one gets .if you don't have it insured. Upon petition, CCP told me that i had traded the ship and thus voids the insurance. I did trade the ship for all of 5 minutes to get carrier jumped to a new system. When I traded it back, it wasn't repacked ( because my alt was the one hauling ) or even made active by the other character. This is the insurance message from ingame when you insure a ship "The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?" It says nothing about trading a ship voiding the contract. It simply says if the ship in question is destroyed while in the possession of Somone else the contract will be considered void. After a long period of back and forth messages with GM's, they still have failed to reimburse clinging to thier stance. So I brought it here for discussion.
Drokar Gazer CIVIL DEFENSE	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:12:00 - [2] you fail at reading 101. _________________________ CIVIL DEFENSE
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:14:00 - [3] how do I fail. tell me? It says nothing about trading voiding contract does it? And the ship was destroyed while in my possession , while still under the time frame of the listed contract
Ricardo Phallus	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:15:00 - [4] Edited by: Ricardo Phallus on 08/02/2008 18:15:21 Originally by: Annapolis It says nothing about trading a ship voiding the contract. It simply says if the ship in question is destroyed while in the possession of Somone else the contract will be considered void. After a long period of back and forth messages with GM's, they still have failed to reimburse clinging to thier stance. So I brought it here for discussion. First, lol. Second I'm very happy to see that the general discussion forum has finally gotten veto power over GMs. I've been lobbying for this for a long time now, it's gratifying to see my visions to reality. This should be good.
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:20:00 - [5] Originally by: Annapolis Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 18:12:31 Edited by: Annapolis on 08/02/2008 18:11:44 I recently Lost a FULLY insured Battleship. I still had the confirmation eve mail saying it was good for another 4 weeks. However... I didn't get the full ammount. I got the ammount one gets .if you don't have it insured. Upon petition, CCP told me that i had traded the ship and thus voids the insurance. I did trade the ship for all of 5 minutes to get carrier jumped to a new system. When I traded it back, it wasn't repacked ( because my alt was the one hauling ) or even made active by the other character. This is the insurance message from ingame when you insure a ship "The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Do you accept the above terms and still want to insure the selected item?" It says nothing about trading a ship voiding the contract. It simply says if the ship in question is destroyed while in the possession of Somone else the contract will be considered void. After a long period of back and forth messages with GM's, they still have failed to reimburse clinging to thier stance. So I brought it here for discussion. again, op fails at reading Originally by: Cecil Montague They should change that warning on entering low sec to: "Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:22:00 - [6] Originally by: Annapolis Repackaging the item will void the contract. The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else. Annapolis is right. These terms imply that the only situation in which the contract is considered void, while the ship is in your possession, is if it has been repackaged... If you trade it to someone else, get it back and THEN get blown up. Insurance should cover it. According to the terms. Obviously it doesn't, so the system needs to be fixed or the paragraph re-written.

CCP Wrangler	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:24:00 - [7] Well, if it has left your possession the insurance is void even if it then get's back in your possession. This is intended game mechanics and nothing we'd reimburse for. Wrangler Community Manager CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang "The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."

GreyGoosecyno	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:24:00 - [8] The ship was destroyed in his possession. The way the message reads people are lead to believe that they can trade it back and forth as many times as they want, however as long as the ship goes boom while they are the pilot it should be covered based on the wording of the contract message.
Rhaegor Stormborn Volition Cult The Volition Cult	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:25:00 - [9] I agree the wording does not indicate in anyway that trading the ship invalidates the insurance. Volition Cult Recruitment Thread Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected]. Sig locked due to repeated reinstatement of oversized file - Mitnal
Xar Corleoni	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:27:00 - [10] aint semantics great :) Sorry but if that was say an insurance contract on a RL vehicle (and bear in mind most players feel MORE for their ships) the solicitors would be up to bat by now Bad wording even if its working as intended - ever so slightly misleading
Terianna Eri Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:30:00 - [11] Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn I agree the wording does not indicate in anyway that trading the ship invalidates the insurance. Quote: The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. So it will be insured under the following two conditions. 1) It is in possession of whoever issued the contract. 2) The contract has not expired. By trading it you void the first condition and therefore the insurance. What's the problem...? __________________________________
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:30:00 - [12] Don't you just love that. " Intended Game Mechanics ". If it's intended then word your messages properly. How hard is it to add " trading ships will void contract " in that message. Until it's in there, I feel I am entitled to a full reimbursment. After all , I did pay isk for the contract and under the wording of that contract I was still covered or...lead to believe I still had coverage
SoftRevolution	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:31:00 - [13] Edited by: SoftRevolution on 08/02/2008 18:31:44 So I clicked this thread expecting comedy and what do you know? EVE RELATED CONTENT
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:33:00 - [14] Originally by: Xar Corleoni aint semantics great :) Sorry but if that was say an insurance contract on a RL vehicle (and bear in mind most players feel MORE for their ships) the solicitors would be up to bat by now Bad wording even if its working as intended - ever so slightly misleading Funny. I never thought, after trading a ship, that trading it back would make my insurance valid again, even from how it was worded. And if you must have your RL car example: 1) Person A insures car. 2) Person A "trades" car over to Person B. (Whether actual money was exchanged or not, title must be transfered.) 3) Person B "trades" car back to Person A. (Title transferred again.) 4) Person A doesn't reinsure car. 5) Person A gets into an accident. 6) Person expects insurance payout? <--- This is the part that doesn't make sense. My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:34:00 - [15] Fun stuff, I recall trading ships with my alt and still having full insurance payout. I guess I was just lucky then. "Bring back the pain."
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:35:00 - [16] Originally by: Annapolis Don't you just love that. " Intended Game Mechanics ". If it's intended then word your messages properly. How hard is it to add " trading ships will void contract " in that message. Until it's in there, I feel I am entitled to a full reimbursment. After all , I did pay isk for the contract and under the wording of that contract I was still covered or...lead to believe I still had coverage Did you ever open your insurance window to make sure it was still insured? Or do you always just go off your Eve Mail? (If the latter, I have no sympathy, as new insurance Eve Mails are not generated 'till you open the insurance window.) My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Ethen Bejorn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:35:00 - [17] Why would person A have to reinsure the car? Their insurance would be 100% valid if person B wrecked the car if they own the car or not it makes no difference. I can take out a life insurance policy on you today, or on your car, if makes no difference who owns it.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:37:00 - [18] Edited by: Angel DeMorphis on 08/02/2008 18:39:23 Edited by: Angel DeMorphis on 08/02/2008 18:37:44 Originally by: Ethen Bejorn Why would person A have to reinsure the car? Their insurance would be 100% valid if person B wrecked the car if they own the car or not it makes no difference. I can take out a life insurance policy on you today, or on your car, if makes no difference who owns it. Not if you transfer the title to the other person. It's only insured while the title is in your name. EDIT: And no, you can't insure my car unless you could verify that you deserved payment if it got wrecked. CONTINUED EDIT: You can try opening a life insurance policy on me or my car, but no respectable (read: valid) insurance agency would do so or, if it ever came time to collect, they would first validate that you deserved to be paid upon my death. My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:38:00 - [19] Edited by: Pohbis on 08/02/2008 18:40:59 Originally by: Terianna Eri Quote: The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. So it will be insured under the following two conditions. 1) It is in possession of whoever issued the contract. 2) The contract has not expired. *By trading it you void the first condition* and therefore the insurance. What's the problem...? But you see, trading it does not void the contract according to the message. According to the wording, it will be insured WHILE in your possesion. There's no mention of once it leaves your possession the contract will be void, only that if it gets blown up WHILE NOT in your possession it will be void. In fact, there's even a complete second sentence that explains what voids the contracts; "The contract will be considered void if the item or ship is destroyed while being in the possession of somebody else." A sentence that is completely redundant if the intended mechanics is to void the contract ONCE it leaves your possesion, the term mentioned later would fall under the "leaving your possesion" clause to begin with.

CCP Prism X C C P	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:38:00 - [20] I reckon any lawyer worth his salt can point out the first sentence states the item is only insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Violating either term makes the item un-insured. Hence were it to leave your possession for any amount of time before the duration expires the insurance is void. I'll concede that the second sentence is very redundant. But so is warning that living things should not be dried in a microwave, or that a hot cup of coffee is hot. But we do it anyway, it's lawyer speak these days I guess. ~ Prism X EvE Database Developer

Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:40:00 - [21] Yeah, the contract gets voided when a ship leaves your possession; that you get it back doesn't matter. That said, CCP is getting way behind with sorting the info pages in this game and on their own website (Item Database), and they're also getting way behind with responding to petitions in any timely fashion. 7 days is "fast" these days. Meanwhile, expectations keep on going right up when the rest of the MMO industry does it right, with few bugs, lots of polish, and good/fast customer support.
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:42:00 - [22] Originally by: Letouk Mernel That said, CCP is getting way behind with sorting the info pages in this game and on their own website (Item Database), and they're also getting way behind with responding to petitions in any timely fashion. 7 days is "fast" these days. Meanwhile, expectations keep on going right up when the rest of the MMO industry does it right, with few bugs, lots of polish, and good/fast customer support. Wow. That came out of nowhere. What the heck does that have to do with insurance? My sig taken from this site. [IMAGE REMOVED]
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:42:00 - [23] According to the wording of the message. I have a right to assume My ship was still covered. It was in my possession when it was destroyed, it was still during the time frame of the contract. It wasn't repackaged.
Annapolis	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:48:00 - [24] Well I reckon a Lawyer worth his salt would say that I have a case. Because it was in my possession at the time of destruction, it was still under the time frame of the said contract. Never says a thing in the wording of the contract about trading the ship voiding the contract.
sakana North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:52:00 - [25] Originally by: CCP Wrangler Well, if it has left your possession the insurance is void even if it then get's back in your possession. This is intended game mechanics and nothing we'd reimburse for. Yea, if this is the case then the wording is very misleading.
Xar Corleoni	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:52:00 - [26] Originally by: CCP Prism X I reckon any lawyer worth his salt can point out the first sentence states the item is only insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Violating either term makes the item un-insured. Hence were it to leave your possession for any amount of time before the duration expires the insurance is void. I'll concede that the second sentence is very redundant. But so is warning that living things should not be dried in a microwave, or that a hot cup of coffee is hot. But we do it anyway, it's lawyer speak these days I guess. and your point is?
Pohbis Neo T.E.C.H.	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:54:00 - [27] Originally by: CCP Prism X I reckon any lawyer worth his salt can point out the first sentence states the item is only insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Violating either term makes the item un-insured. Hence were it to leave your possession for any amount of time before the duration expires the insurance is void. I'll concede that the second sentence is very redundant. But so is warning that living things should not be dried in a microwave, or that a hot cup of coffee is hot. But we do it anyway, it's lawyer speak these days I guess. True... and any lawyer worth his salt will point out, that in this case, the redundant (third) sentence actually causes confusion about exactly what the first sentence covers, since something can leave your possession and return to your possession during the duration of the contract.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:56:00 - [28] Originally by: Xar Corleoni Originally by: CCP Prism X I reckon any lawyer worth his salt can point out the first sentence states the item is only insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract. Violating either term makes the item un-insured. Hence were it to leave your possession for any amount of time before the duration expires the insurance is void. I'll concede that the second sentence is very redundant. But so is warning that living things should not be dried in a microwave, or that a hot cup of coffee is hot. But we do it anyway, it's lawyer speak these days I guess. and your point is? I think his point is eve is a cold *****.
Fly1	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:00:00 - [29] Annapolis is Right, He does have a legitimate case. Based on the wording of the contract he had every right to assume he was still covered, and in truth he should have been based on the terms of what was written. The message needs to be ammended in game to state that trading a ship or item, or that if the ship or item leaves your possession at anytime, the contract will be considered void.
Marius Deterium Caldari The Hull Miners Union The Red Skull	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:00:00 - [30] Edited by: Marius Deterium on 08/02/2008 19:00:47 It's nice to see this is inconsistently enforced. About a month ago I had an alt move a drake across empire for me. The drake was insured. When the drake was back in my possession, and it got popped. I got paid the full insurance amount. The insurance system is definatly borked. I get emails about insurance expiring for ships I've sold months ago. Insurance fails. --- Mining hulls for the juicy goods inside. Good...bad, I'm the guy with the gun.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.