by Lori » Mon Jul 28, 2008 09:41 pm
The below question was left in my inbox...by an unregistered poster......lori
In a prior post, you mentioned that the insurance company has a duty to protect a lienholder in some cases but not in others. Is there a statute or case that I can reference?
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 10:00 pm Post Subject:
protect a lienholder in some cases but not in others
Well, it would really depend which thread...but safe to say that if it's first party claim, (you are the insured), then the carrier must protect the leinholder. The only time that a third party (claimant) lein holder must be protected (and really it's not protected)...is if the vehicle totals....in that case the lienholder has to be paid to get the title released...Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 06:42 am Post Subject:
The insurers are required to protect the interest of the lien holder because, in case of the financed cars, the ‘title' of the car stays with the lien holder. And the loan needs to be paid off before the lien holder releases the title to the owner or the insurance company.
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 07:15 am Post Subject:
Such instances are available in plentitude….if you wreck your brand new car in which you still have the entire amount of loan unpaid, the insurance company will write the claim check towards the insurance company, because you're not yet the legal owner of the vehicle.
You might have experienced that everytime you try to grab a new car, the lender insists you upon carrying extra coverage on the vehicle, the reason remains that the financer shouldn't suffer financial loss during the business and his interest should remain protected.
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 02:15 pm Post Subject:
Ba8y6irl
i created a new thread for your post/question it is located here:
http://www.ampminsure.org/start/about6976.html
Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 06:36 pm Post Subject:
You can find the answer to why the lein holder is protected in first party cases, in your state's uniform commercial codes located in the statutes of the state.
The uniform commercial code is federal in nature but I believe state adopt the code and make changes as necessary pertinent to their states.
The UCC sets the guidelines of transactions between merchants and customers with regards to contract languages which is basically what a first party policy of insurance is.
Third party claims are damage loss settements based on tort law.
Webters online dictionary defines the UCC as follows.
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Finance Definition
A coordinated code of laws governing the legal aspects of business and financial transactions in the United States, excluding Louisiana. The UCC regulates the sale of goods, and also regulates financial transactions, such as bank deposits and collections, letters of credit, bulk transfers, and the delivery of title documents. It defines the rights and responsibilities of each party in a commercial transaction and provides a statutory definition of commonly used business practices. The National Conference of Commissions of Uniform State Laws wrote the UCC.
Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2011 07:52 pm Post Subject: third party insurance
Lienholder would be third party in a total loss. How can an insurance carrier of the first party pay the second party for a total loss and not include the lienholder on the check. Is there some law in Kentucky that allows this. thank you.
Add your comment