by Guest » Wed Aug 11, 2010 01:08 am
My question more of a problem is. I bought a classic car and asked my agent to add it to my current policy with my other car and add full coverage for it like my other car has. They said they would and would get me the new policy to sign in a few days. When they got the new policy papers in and asked us to come in and sign them we did. Yes i do not understand all the mumbo jumbo of the particulars of these policy's and signed them. After the 6 months where up my rates when way up so i asked them to find me a better rate with all the same coverages. the new company was going to save me about 95 bucks a month. I at that time felt it was cheaper and asked the question for peace of mind " this is for the same coverages corect'? they said yes. so the new policy was created and and the new documents where signed. Again i do not quite understand how they read and signed them. Here is where the problem comes in. i wreck my beloved classic and called it into my insurance provider and started a claim. I got a call back only to find out i had on liability on the car. I called my agent to find out what was the issue. they also told me after looking into it that i did in fact have only liability. They did say that they have all the documentation that specifically states and proves i specifically asked for full coverage at the time i first asked. So my question is where do i stand with this all as a legal stand point. I asked specifically for full coverage. and all the paperwork show me doing so. I did not catch the mistake on the docs twice when signing them.
Do i have a leg to stand on or does my agent have me by the short hairs if you will.
Please please help. at this point the car is totaled and it is a 10,000 dollar car. yes not a ton but its my 10,000 dollar car
Do i have a leg to stand on or does my agent have me by the short hairs if you will.
Please please help. at this point the car is totaled and it is a 10,000 dollar car. yes not a ton but its my 10,000 dollar car
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:07 pm Post Subject: Coverage
Good morning,
It has been my experience that if you have the signed documentation showing you purchased physical damage coverage on the listed vehicle, and the paperwork also shows the agent's signature, then yes you have a leg to stand on. Along with the documentation, if the paperwork shows the down payment paid is based on the Liability, Comprehensive and Collision coverage all the better. The Insurance Company should pay the damages and possibly subrogate against the agents' Errors and Ommission coverage. Hope this helps and good luck.
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 04:10 pm Post Subject:
If you have documentation to show that you should have been provided full coverage and were not provided full coverage, you should be fine.
First, if you do not already have copies of the documents the agency mentioned that shows you requested full coverage, then ask the agency to give you a copy now. You will want that to support your case.
If the agent has this information and it is the company's fault they should begin working on your behalf to get this resolved with the company. If it was the agents mistake, they may not be as helpful.
Get the documents, contact the insurance company's claim department again and provide them the documentation showing the coverage should have been provided. If this is not getting you anywhere, speak to a claims supervisor. If that does not work, seek legal counsel.
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 08:44 pm Post Subject:
If you have documentation to show that you should have been provided full coverage and were not provided full coverage, you should be fine.
You haven't mentioned what kind of "beloved classic car" you're talking about. If it's value is one of a collector's interest, such as a '57 Chevy or a Deusenberg, then even having all the paperwork may not mean that "you should be fine" as Glen suggests.
A 1957 Chevy is "a 53 year old car". Well, they did actually make them out of steel back then, with chrome-plated steel bumpers, and there might be some added salvage value at a scrap yard because of that.
But if you're thinking that a cherry '57 Chevy is worth about $25,000, you would need a "stated value" policy instead of a standard Personal Auto Policy "with full coverage".
Why? Because a '57 Chevy by all other accounts is a 53 year old car. It's Actual Cash Value (replacement cost less depreciation) would make it virtually worthless apart from its collector's value. Unless you and the insurance company agreed on a true "replacement value" more to your way of thinking.
So your actual "cause of action" is probably not against the insurance company, even if it turns out you were supposed to be "fully covered" (because even then you aren't going to be happy about their offer), but against the insurance agent for his "errors and omissions" -- negligence in not obtaining the proper coverage according to your instructions. It's not easy to prove, but it is winnable with enough evidence. The agent's E&O policy should have at least $1,000,000 in coverage.
But here's what you'll really have to prove . . . you asked for the proper coverage (stated value) and when you read the policy declarations and did not see that you had the coverage you requested, you refused the coverage and demanded that the agent "get it right" the next time.
I don't think that happened, did it? Why not? Because you stated here that you never really read what your coverage was:
Yes i do not understand all the mumbo jumbo of the particulars of these policy's and signed them . . . . Again i do not quite understand how they read and signed them.
That's a BIG problem. For you. That's why there are lawyers who specialize in contract law, so you can go to them with the "mumbo jumbo" and they can explain it to you . . . for a fee.
I don't think you did that. As Hardy so often said to Laurel, "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into!" Or as Jimmy Durante might have said, "What a revoltin' development."
Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:02 pm Post Subject:
Max makes a good point. If the question of full coverage has even come up, it is likely that you do not have a stated value policy, as max calls it or a classic car policy as others might call it. Because, classic car policies are not normally written for liability only. If you are on an actual cash value type policy and the vehicle is an antique type vehicle then the amount paid under the full coverage would likely be no where near the appraised value of the vehicle. That is another problem all together.
That's a BIG problem. For you. That's why there are lawyers who specialize in contract law, so you can go to them with the "mumbo jumbo" and they can explain it to you . . . for a fee.
I do not know how realistic it would be to take every document we sign to an attorney to be reviewed. However, I'm sure an attorney would think it would be a good idea. That being said, you do need to ask questions and make certain you understand the type of coverage you are getting. Especially, with something like a classic car. Hopefully, this will not be an expensive learning experience for you. Good luck.
Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:36 am Post Subject:
In CA we have licensed Life & Disability Insurance Analysts who can help persons understand their coverage. No analogue on the P&C side. The only true choice for a legal interpretation is a lawyer.
A good agent will know and be able to explain the coverage. One who has something to hide may simply say, "Oh, yeah, everything's covered. Sure, you bet!" I would never take that bet.
Add your comment