I hardly ever participate in EF because of the constant negativity and aggression level. I’ve asked mod’s to intervene in this case as it got to personal insults but given there’s been no reply I’ll give it one last try.

This started with my initial post where I said among other suggestions “I'd recommend you get legal insurance and one that cover employment issues (the base cover often doesn't) - you usually have to wait 3 months before you can submit a claim so depends also on how urgent this situation you're in is. Regardless, I'd recommend it. As you say, these situations come unexpectedly and it's much better to have the possibility to talk with a professional than to feel alone and rely on a public forum”

… and immediately I got the challenge that “AFAIK legal insurance does not cover something that happened before you had insurance coverage.” I agreed with this comment (“indeed”) and I understand given OP’s subject title “suing my current employer” that some people took this as OP is going to a lawyer tomorrow and me advising him to lay low for 3 months and then claim. I've re-read my posts and recognize my language may have been triggering, whereas I meant that if the situation is urgent/immediate then I don’t see a point in getting insurance as there is a no-claim period. If it isn’t, then it makes sense as there is no certainty on outcome but you gain a safety net. As I put in another post “it may be the situation resolves by itself which sometimes with introspection and a few honest conversations it does ...but, if not, in 3 months time (or whatever the period is for the particular insurance cover) you know you can ask for a third party legal opinion”.

I also clarified that if there’s an ongoing process in place likely insurer won’t accept, but if not (ie “just uneasiness and resentment and not knowing what to do”) you can [possibly] get it but have a no-claim period you should be aware of. And, yes, after that you can claim. And that depending on the OP’s stage in the process I’d nonetheless recommend it as employment issues may lead to other issues, i.e. may not be applicable to the specific employment question but useful for others.

Nowhere did I advocate for non-disclosure of the situation to the insurer, but neither did I say “do not lie to your insurer”.

So after getting pretty harsh comments, I tried to clarify this in my following posts:

• • “I'm not advocating doing anything illegal or hiding evidence from the insurer. As part of the normal conversation with the agent you'll be asked a ton of questions, from my experience they understand the risks e.g. when I asked about including employer legal cover I mentioned there were several reorgs happening and I didn't want to be caught without protection ... and insurance agent said this was perfectly legit and happened all the time i.e. it's usually when there is uneasiness that people realize they might benefit from protection.” – would the insurer have covered me if the reorg had impacted me? We’ll never know. Would I be classified as scamming the insurer? Nope …or I sure hope not! The insurance agent said they would provide cover as long as the 3 month period was over and I didn’t have, at the date of signing the insurance contract, any information as to whether I’d be directly impacted. Reorgs happen all the time and actually serve as a trigger for people to assess their risk and get (or not) cover; insurers know that and therefore have a no-claim period but don’t stop insuring people (they insure against risk after all). Or to apply my initial language to my own case “There was a lot of uneasiness but nothing was out in the open and the insurer was happy to take the risk on that basis.” In the end I wasn’t impacted and the insurer is happily collecting the premium and I’m happy knowing if there’s an issue down the line I have this cover.
• • “So apologies if it sounded like I was advocating scamming the insurer. I'm not. I'm advocating getting legal insurance as I found that useful and I've seen enough cases of friends and colleagues scrambling.” – I apologized for any misunderstanding and clarified that my point is that legal insurance is important.
• • And again in another post “I suggested the OP get legal insurance. I've said if there's a legal process in place it is unlikely the insurer will accept risk. I've said if there isn't one as part of the conversation with the insurer (or agent) the question will come up as to why you want it and there's a questionnaire you fill - to be 100% clear, my recommendation is that OP answers truthfully" – I understand my initial phrasing didn’t explicitly mention the process to get insurance so I’ve made it as explicit as I could that the OP shouldn’t lie.

…and AFTER providing the above mentioned clarifications I was compared to a delinquent and told I was a liar.

*******

For the record I still believe OP should get legal cover if he can and do so asap. And I recommend anyone who sees trouble on the horizon to get it too (and even if you don’t!). And to know that there is a waiting period before you can claim (ie, don’t wait for the last minute before getting cover). I made the parallel to pregnancy, when you move from semi-private to private, there’s a 12-month window when you can’t claim – so, yes, if I know someone is thinking of it and they have an interest in private health insurance, I recommend they get that sorted asap.

None of this is illegal (as long as relevant information is disclosed) and it really does depend on where OP is in the process whether legal cover makes sense or not and whether the insurer accepts it or not. Which is why I recommend having it as a default. As the OP put it “for those who are afraid and making jokes, this can happen to you also, a week before i could not imagine writing such a thread and boom here i am, life is so unpredictable, please take care and respect each other”

I sympathise with OP’s struggles and that usually leads me to try to help. I’ll probably do less of that. I think it’s a pity but I’m very sure that at least a handful of members will see this as “getting rid of an insurance scammer” and pat themselves in the back. And it pains me. So I've been thinking of how - or whether - to respond. In the end opted to write this long-ass message. I recognize there’s no point in trying to convince people who’ve made their own verdict, but hoping it’s useful for others.

Now I go back to my introverted cocoon.

I wish the OP, and anyone else who finds themselves struggling, all the best of luck!

What 'personal insults'?

Tom

I only read the first paragraph as your post seems unnecessarily long-winded, but I suggest developing a thicker e-skin.

Incredibly short sighted to sue one's employer here in Switzerland, unless (i) you are 100% certain of success, and (ii) you are suing for monetary damages that are in the millions and will allow you to never have to work again. One thing I have learned from working here is that everyone seems to know everyone in the top positions of every industry and if you get a bad mark on your name you will be unofficially black listed in that industry. The smart thing to do is quietly go about finding a new job and, once you have secured a new position, resign and thank your existing employer and wish them all the best. This is not the US or UK where litigation is the solution to all ills.

You were never compared to a delinquent, you made a statement that your past experience was in insurance pricing and I responded that my experience was in catching delinquents. People can read back over the discussion, particularly where you have been quoted and draw their own conclusions on the second part of your statement.

We don't normally discuss individual modding decisions in public, but as you've raised it here...

Perspective is a wonderful thing. Looking at it from outside the "insult" you complained about was clearly not directed at you, but at people who deliberately try to defraud insurance companies. The suggestion that you were advocating such behaviour was made independently, with no link between the two.

The "liar" comment seems to be implying that someone who post-edits and claims not to have said what they have said is going to find it difficult to be taken credibly. Did you do that?

In both cases it really seems to be a question of 'if the cap fits...'.