From: Paul A. Thomas (bluewhale@jaxkneppers.com)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 11:07:40 PDT
Hi Ron et al:
> Insurance companies are whores, but a necessary evil. They only bet on
> sure things.
As I handled all claim types for the first 10 years out of school in
multiple states I'd like to offer my .02:
They don't bet on sure things. They are not allowed to by the states,
otherwise people with a ticket could not get insurance. New Jersey used to
be a good example: 20 years ago more than half the people there chose the
'assigned risk' category because insurance companies did not want to cover
people for the rates the state allowed. Those insurance companies who did
business in NJ had to take their percentage of the assigned risk pool or
leave the state. Many chose to leave the state.. same in Mass, Ca, Fla.
> I try to avoid pitfalls when dealing with my insurance company by going
> for absolute minimums required by the law.
This is a choice, but ... Carrying 15K for damage to other vehicles is
something that makes the hairs on my neck stand straight up. ( depends on
your state: some states let you keep one dwelling and one vehicle after the
bankruptcy court is finished with you ). Say I'm driving my deuce, and try
to reach a map on the passenger side. I force a 7 Series into a nice
Peterbuilt, which rolls. Property damage alone is over $100K right there.
As you noted, it's a personal choice: I wanted to get the other view out as
most people don't like the very possible threat of losing their sofa's,
paintings, whatever because they didn't consider paying a few hundred
dollars more per year for their policy.
( Have you ever looked at an umbrella policy? I used to have one which ran
me $190 per year, brought my limits up for auto and personal liability to
$1,000,000. )
> If I get in an accident, I will be left hanging in the wind
NO WAY. Not unless they can show you knowingly committed fraud. Calling
it a pickup MIGHT fall under that category, but if the policy says 2.5 Ton
pickup, you might win in that ANY idiot, especially an underwriting idiot,
knows there are no 2.5 ton pickups. As long as you, the vehicle owner,
don't lie to them in writing then they have to honor the policy terms. If
they do not you nail them for Bad Faith and whatever lawyer you choose
sends you candy and flowers for the rest of your life. So many MV's can
not be classified properly: Shoot, the DMV's can't do it! Certainly the
insurance companies won't be able to. Thus we would get the benefit of the
doubt IF we tried to conform. Calling a M35 a 'stake' truck for
instance. Same size, capacity, etc. And they have to know the year of the
truck or they won't write it, thus there was a real attempt to properly
classify the vehicle by the owner.. if the insurance company doesn't
request photo's ( which many in Ca do now ) or ask appropriate questions
then they have to honor that policy once issued. Period.
> We have to use them because the prostitutes we call 'elected' officials
> know what is best for us.
No, we have to use them because the asshole who nails my car and puts me in
the hospital again should pay for it. Else I would have to track him/her
down and beat the money out of them, thus causing a feud, thus requiring
more cops to shoot the people on both sides of the feud. I am not
following your logic here. You don't have to carry collision on your old
vehicle. You have to carry something to protect ME and Joe Public from
damage YOU might cause.
Oh. Just occurred to me. Were you one of those on the 'driving is a
privilege" side in the recent thread?
IF it were a privilege then insurance would be something nice to carry, to
protect others in the almost impossible event that 'I' caused an accident.
I only read parts of that thread, as it seems a moot point to me. ( list
please bash me if the following is wrong ): AFAIK, NO courts in the US ( or
the world for that matter ) consider driving to be a privilege. If the
courts, which rule on and make law, say it is not a privilege then it's
not. If I can't afford a Ferrari I shouldn't drive one. State inspections
supposedly make sure my Ferrari is safe to drive. If it doesn't pass, I
can't drive it thus protecting others from my poor mechanical
skills. Insurance serves a similar purpose: to 'protect' others from my
choices/actions.
It works for me. And for most people who have been hit by others on the road.
Ron: I apologize if this heated up too much. You help a lot of people
here. But kids just starting out quote the ideas you espoused here to me
from time to time, never having considered the thoughts I just wrote. They
do so because it is less expensive, and because it's cool to flaunt the
system. ( well OK, it IS fun to flaunt the system ) This is until one of
their friends or they themselves get caught. Then it's 'why didn't anyone
tell me'. As most of the ones I encounter are bright enough and not prone
to gang banging I try to offer both sides to this type of argument ( You
did, but how many people are willing to lose everything they have at the
drop of a hat? )
Paul
(tucking soap box away, pokin down the road)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 23 2003 - 13:21:23 PDT