Originally by: Sandeep

---

Direct-trading of ship does not void its insurance, as long as it belongs to the original insurer the moment it blows up.

Whether it is a glitch or a user error should be determined by the OP and CCP.

---

Originally by: Ulstan

---

Edited by: Ulstan on 08/02/2008 21:44:22

Quote:

---

However "insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract", gramatically, can also be written as "it must be in your possession for the duration of the contract for it to remain insured". In this case, CCP would be right.

Both understandings of the sentence, according to the English language, could be the intent of the sentence.

---

I dispute this, actually.

"insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract" is the same as "insured for the duration of the contract, while in your possesion" because of the way while works - it is specifying a certain amount of time during which the following clause holds. In thise case, the amount of time that it is in your possesion.

To even imply that it had to be in your possesion the whole time, it would have to say
"insured if in your possession for the duration of the contract"

Now, sure, mayyyybe you could stretch it to mean the other, but it's certainly counter-intuitive and ambiguous and should be changed :)

---

Originally by: Ulstan

---

I guess what I'm trying to say, and I'm having trouble finding the exact words to express my thought, is that it makes no sense to have 'while' applying to the entire phrase "in your possession for the duration of the contract" because you have two competing 'time' modifiers going on here.

While means "during or in the time that" so it has a similar meaning to "the duration of the contract", so it would be completely redundant to have one modifying the other - indeed, it wouldn't even work. The only way it makes sense is if it's two different modifiers: (1)while it is in your possesion (2) while the contract is active.

---

Originally by: Engineer Butters

---

Originally by: Drasked

---

I just insured a shuttle on this character, traded it to my alt, waited 5 minutes, traded it back, and it's still insured.

---

now destroy the shuttle and see what pays out?

---

Originally by: Aeryn Davenport

---

This whole argument is based on the completely ridiculous assumption that an insurance contract would get reinstated after it is voided.

---

Originally by: Xioden Acap

---

I would like a GM/Mod to either remove the excess isk obtained from a bug from my wallet, or to grant the OP the difference in insurance payment since trading to a different character/account does not void insurance as previously stated.

Thank you.

---

Originally by: Mariokoli Mianana

---

Originally by: Xioden Acap

---

I would like a GM/Mod to either remove the excess isk obtained from a bug from my wallet, or to grant the OP the difference in insurance payment since trading to a different character/account does not void insurance as previously stated.

Thank you.

---

Feel free to transfer the excess isk to my character. I'd gladly take it. In addition, there are other possible factors that could have taken place. But I appreciate your skillz in looking into the audit logs on CCP's servers to come up with this authoritative answer.

---

Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn

---

Originally by: Aeryn Davenport

---

This whole argument is based on the completely ridiculous assumption that an insurance contract would get reinstated after it is voided.

---

Looks like someone failed to read the thread!

Good job, great success.

---

Originally by: Angel DeMorphis

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Now, if the "while in your possession" is part of the main sentence, and the thing that makes the insurance valid is "while in your possession for the duration of the contract", then you are saying it must be in your possession for the duration of the contract

---

Originally by: Mariokoli Mianana

---

In addition, there are other possible factors that could have taken place. But I appreciate your skillz in looking into the audit logs on CCP's servers to come up with this authoritative answer.

---

Originally by: Annapolis

---

Upon petition, CCP told me that i had traded the ship and thus voids the insurance.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Drasked

---

Originally by: Engineer Butters

---

Originally by: Drasked

---

I just insured a shuttle on this character, traded it to my alt, waited 5 minutes, traded it back, and it's still insured.

---

now destroy the shuttle and see what pays out?

---

5000 isk, wich is the price advertised for the platinum 100% contract.

---

Originally by: Ulstan

---

We see this in the real world too "Save 50% while you shop at Borders for the next 12 months". I submit that no one would interpret that to mean that the 'save 50%' modified 'while you shop at Borders for the next 12 months' meaning 'as long as you have shopped at Borders and nowhere else for the next 12 months, you can save 50%'

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).

Precedent doesn't work where you're from?
Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...

It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.

To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.

---

Originally by: Engineer Butters

---

I applaud your honesty.
Still think you are wrong though!!

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).

Precedent doesn't work where you're from?
Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...

It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.

To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).

Precedent doesn't work where you're from?
Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...

It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.

To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.

---

Originally by: Xioden Acap

---

So I bought a nice shiny new Gallente Shuttle. I insured it with a nice platinum insurance plan that covered it for 5,000 isk. I traded the same Gallente Shuttle to an alt.

The shuttle was out of possession of the character who insured it, and thus according to earlier responses in the thread should void the insurance.

I traded the shuttle back to this character (who had insured it), and go take a look in the insurance menu. Oh look! Still platinum insurance plan on it. Take it outside and go to a belt. Rats kill it, nice insurance payment of 5,000 isk.

I would like a GM/Mod to either remove the excess isk obtained from a bug from my wallet, or to grant the OP the difference in insurance payment since trading to a different character/account does not void insurance as previously stated.

Thank you.

---

Originally by: Rufus MacMaranth

---

Edited by: Rufus MacMaranth on 08/02/2008 21:26:35
Edited by: Rufus MacMaranth on 08/02/2008 21:25:08
Edited by: Rufus MacMaranth on 08/02/2008 21:24:04

Originally by:

---

"The selected item will be insured while in your possession for the duration of the contract.

---

Sorry, but this line here is their get out. The ship is insured while in your possession. As soon as it leaves your possession it is not insured any more. End of story. You might want to take a logic 101 course and read the sentence.

The fact that the game CAN allow it for some players (time limit, system jump, down time in the way, looking at insurance may all trigger the cancellation event, who knows) does not make you right.

Now, admittedly, a little punctuation would help, but I still have no idea why you expected it to be insured after you traded it anyway.
Ruf.

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).

Precedent doesn't work where you're from?

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).

Precedent doesn't work where you're from?
Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...

It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.

To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.

---

Originally by: CCP Prism X

---

Any lawyer worth his salt would evoke precedent. Period (seeing as people decided to pick up on that theme).

Precedent doesn't work where you're from?
Well, the only just way to treat this case is in the same way as all others. You decided to engage in PvP trade, it voided the contract. The words are misleading? Honestly, this isn't international law. We aren't dealing with morals...

It's game mechanics. Insurance binds you to a location unless you take the time and risk to move. Any veteran player knows this and perhaps this is the root of the problem. I'll take care to mention to the NPE (New Player Experience) group that this is confusing to new players, but you're not getting a reimbursement. We've refused everyone else up to this point and just because you found the fine print vague enough... well it still aint international law, it's EVE. You have to abide to the same rules as the other players.

To summarize: I'll take care to mention the message could be clearer to content designers. It's the best I can give you as a DB Developer who took interest in this misunderstanding. On the flip side I'm also ready to promise you that you'll have to abide by the same rulse as everyone else regardless of how you understood the written word. It's EVE law.

---

Originally by: Annapolis

---

....you'd had your ship's owner changed once after you reimbursed it.

---

Originally by: Annapolis

---

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?"

---

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

---

If you can understand our goal, disagree with our solution and offer a solution that is equal or better your opinion has a better chance of being heard...

---