Widows of the Fallen in Fight with Banks over Mortgages

[alfie]

As of today the Canadian Bankers Association stated that all of their member banks will waive this clause if it is in their terms. I can't recall the media outlet that published this however.

 

[battleaxe]

As of today the Canadian Bankers Association stated that all of their member banks will waive this clause if it is in their terms. I can't recall the media outlet that published this however.

Is this the one you read?  The Canadian Press piece...  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070213.wbankwid0213/BNStory/National/home.

Like many reports on this issue, I find it vague and non-committal- there's no mention of which financial institutions are involved.  It states, "a number of banks will not apply an act-of-war clause" and "it's not clear how many banks offered policies with the war exclusion clause, but that the majority don't".

I'd like to know which ones will not apply an act-of-war clause...mostly, I'd like clarification as to what the banks who do apply a war exclusion clause consider an act of war. 

Currently, it seems that things are very much open to interpretation- and generally the way it is interpreted benefits the banks- and not the policy holders who had counted on the peace of mind they thought they had invested in.

In the G and M comments on this article, somebody brought up an interesting point, I was wondering if the lawyers on the site could weigh in here.

Somebody wrote about "reading the fine print": "Under this form of contract, any exclusionary clauses must be explicitly brought to the attention of the party who didn't write the contract - being in the fine print doesn't count. This is a well established point of law. If this case had gone to court the bank would have lost and had to pay costs as well.."

Is this valid?  Are the banks backing down because they know they are up against unwinnable (legal) circumstances- the fact that Canada is not officially at war, and that contract law will eventually bite them in the butt anyway? Did the insurance companies have a duty of care to provide the exclusions info to the families who are now having problems? 
It would take that whole 'they should have read the fine print' argument right off of the table and cut everyone a little slack-not to mention giving them a little leeway for being human and fallible.

 

[Navy_Blue]

To back track a bit...We knowingly sign up and understand the risks yes.  We also are willing to stand up understanding we might dye or be seriously disabled in our line of work.  No I wouldn't draw a line.  All public servants who in specific cases Soldiers, Police Firefighters even Doctors and Nurses, peace time and war.  We/They all serve the public with the understanding that it isn't safe.  Even if we went into WWIII it wouldn't bankrupt the country to payout peoples depts.  If it did we are in rough shape.  They are talking about another election this year the average cost of a campain is over $200mil. That's on our tab!  If the average remaining balance of a mortgage was $150K they could pay 1333 mortgages off for the cost of a cheap election campain.  Where is all the CHMC money piled up these days?