FOX news article brings up question

Yesterday FOX news was reporting that Time Warner Cable was billing tornado victims for damage to cable boxes and equipment due to the tornado. Below is a quote from the article: : WHEATLAND, Wis. — Having a tornado demolish her home was bad enough. But when Ann Beam received a $2,000 cable bill a few weeks later, she was floored. andquot;I just couldn't believe it,andquot; Beam said. andquot;I was like, 'What are they thinking?'andquot; Time Warner Cable billed a number of Wheatland residents for equipment destroyed in the Jan. 7 twister that struck the southeast corner of the state. Beam's bill covered five cable boxes and five remote controls. She immediately called the cable company, but a man who identified himself as a manager said there was nothing the company could do. andquot;They said I would have to take the bill and turn it in to my insurance company,andquot; Beam said. But her cable equipment was nine years old, and the insurance company would pay only a depreciated value that wouldn't cover her bill, she said. Now Time Warner also states that this was a andquot;mistakeandquot; and all the customer has to do is call them and they will take these charges off their bill. However, this does bring up a question about the andquot;Act of Godandquot; clause that many insurances have. And my question is (in light of this recent news article), If your insurance company refuses to cover some claim to your property under this andquot;Act Of Godandquot; clause but some one else's property get destroyed as well are you responsible or does this andquot;Act of Godandquot; clause relieve you from responsibility also? It does not seem fair that some event happening that you could not control and is also a legal way out for large insurance companies to keep from paying a claim would leave you still responsible for some repair or replacement of other's property that might be affected but somehow I think the homeowner might still be held responsible. In this case it appear that Time Warner did not want the bad andquot;publicityandquot; associated with the news that was being reported about this so they said it was a andquot;mistakeandquot; but from reading the article it appears to me their original intent was to collect damages from the individuals who had their services and who's boxes had been damaged or destroyed. Anyone feel like weighing in on this one?