I have just come to know of something awesome ! Is it true that our claims won't be compensated for any accident caused by road rage ?
Total Comments: 15
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 05:38 am Post Subject:
If you intentionaly struck someone else with your vehicle, it is my understanding that your carrier would not have to pay your claim and may not defend you against the other driver's claim.
If you are intentionaly struck by someone, your carrier should take care of your damages, but the other carrier could deny coverage for their driver leaving you the task of pursuing the driver if you did not want to go through your own coverage or if you did not have coverage.
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 06:08 am Post Subject: How do we derive it !
yeh..but its truely critical! how do you understand or term something as a 'road rage' ? how do we define or brand it like that ?
regards, Smithson
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 07:30 am Post Subject:
In case you come across such hostile act, don't panic or get carried away ! It also becomes your duty to report that prankster to the law enforcement officials as soon as you can.
Its also better for you to manage the license number and other associated information about the car and its driver.
It would be highly beneficial if you could also forward a secret call alert to the law enforcement officials. In doing so, you'd always have an edge over others towards curving road rage even though your insurance fails to cover for that. Am I right !
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 09:32 am Post Subject:
Is it true that our claims won't be compensated for any accident caused by road rage ?
i am still loking to get into that.......
but what do you mean by road rage.....
it means like you are on a mission to kill someone
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 09:55 am Post Subject: road rage
I'll try to tell you the meaning. I'm telling you from actually SEEING this, on the road. i was in my car, on the freeway, with my son. I'm ASSUMING these two cars were 'after each other.' Car 'X' was tale gating ( and I mean ALMOST touching the bumper of car 'Y'). They were going about 60 miles per hour. Car 'Y' got away from car 'X'.....swerving in between cars and not looking where he was going. He ALMOST side-swiped two OTHER cars, in the process. It was 'back and forth' with both cars, for while. I stayed as far away as I good. I don't know if they had gotten in an accident or not, but, I hope they din't. I guess you can say they were trying to 'get each other'. Anyway...it's really scary to see. Not just from MY point of view, but, other drivers on the road, I'm sure. Hope this explainantion helped a bit.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:00 am Post Subject: accident
...also I want to add, I have a friend that works for an insurance company. If you were an 'innocent bystander', and someone INVOLVED with the 'road rage' thing, hits your car, I believe you CAN get compensated for this. However.......if you WERE involved with the 'road rage' incident, then, no...I don't believe you can get compensated. Hope this clears things up a bit.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:50 am Post Subject:
No insurance policy will cover an ''INTENTIONAL ACT''...that is where the denial comes from....if we are to assume that a road rage instance is 'intentional' or ''a reasonable individual would expect to result from the intional acts of an insured'.....
Re; the 'innocent co-insured'...atleast in MO, this is true but only under the property damage portion doesn't cover the innocent insured for BI, ''however, if an innocent coinsured makes a claim for property damage, which is otherwise covered by coveage be we will not deny coverage for such claim based on the fact that another insured intended to cause the property damage or intended the act causing the property damage. In that situation our liabilitly is limited to the innocent coinsured's ownership interest in the property'... (which I guess means they would pay for half the damage?) and also....under ''Special insuring agreement for coverages A&B, innocent coinsured...the property damage claim of an innocent coinsured will not be denied based solely on the fact that another insured intended the act....this provision applies only to claims under coverage b...." I don't understand myself how they get away with not covering BI for the innocent co-insured...but seems to be what it says...
You understand in otherwords...if your hot headed spouse goes out and does something stupid..(intentionally hits another vehicle) .then you will be protected as the innocent coinsured...and they will pay to fix the other (truely innocent) parties vehicle...however, if they were injured...then that injury is totally denied... :?
now if there is no 'innocent' coinsured on the policy...then the p.d. claim also would be denied...and the victim of the roadrage would have to look for the repair cost from their insured under their collision coverage, then their company would go after the 'bad guy'....
Also this (road rage) wouldn't be considered (IMO) a 'road hazard' claim...a road hazard claim are things like, the vehicle in front of you kicks up a rock and hits your vehicle...etc.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 03:49 am Post Subject:
Intentional acts are usually excluded under the liability portion of the policy but it's _extremely_ difficult to get away with this denial. First, who's going to flat out admit that they intended on running into someone? You'd have to be extremely stupid to do that but even stupider to admit to it. Also, many states hold the owner responsible for the use of their vehicle. So if it was someone other then the owner driver, the policy would not excluded liability coverage to the owner... just the driver. In my experience it's usually someone who does not own the vehicle that pulls a bonehead move like what is being described. Go figure.
Many policies also have a "commision of a felony" exclusion. But this usually won't apply either.
Lastly, any denial like this is walking on thin ice for an insurance company as it goes against public policy. Judges/juries don't like to see innocent people being penalized for the stupidity of another. Most carriers I know of would simply pay the claim and non-renew the person's policy.
With that said, I handled a claim where two people were racing. One stopped but the other one ran into the rear of my insureds car (my insured was simply stopped at a light). That other driver then got out and ran away. That other owners carrier tried to deny the claim as they had an exclusion for "racing" and also for "hit and run". I had to point out that their policy defined racing as basically being a sanctioned event and the "hit and run" was not a "hit and run" (he hit and then ran... but on foot) and that this occurred after the accident. I was told these denials were from a supervisor :( . I think someone higher up eventually got wise as they paid the claim.
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 03:49 am Post Subject: road rage
Some people DO get away with this. I know OF a few people who actually STARTED the 'road rsge', was injuried in 'it', and was compensated for the injuries. OMG!! How can this LEGALLY happen?!
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 01:47 pm Post Subject:
As an intructer I had years ago use to say... "Is stupidity covered? Yes, all the time".
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 05:38 am Post Subject:
If you intentionaly struck someone else with your vehicle, it is my understanding that your carrier would not have to pay your claim and may not defend you against the other driver's claim.
If you are intentionaly struck by someone, your carrier should take care of your damages, but the other carrier could deny coverage for their driver leaving you the task of pursuing the driver if you did not want to go through your own coverage or if you did not have coverage.
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 06:08 am Post Subject: How do we derive it !
yeh..but its truely critical! how do you understand or term something as a 'road rage' ? how do we define or brand it like that ?
regards, Smithson
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 07:30 am Post Subject:
In case you come across such hostile act, don't panic or get carried away ! It also becomes your duty to report that prankster to the law enforcement officials as soon as you can.
Its also better for you to manage the license number and other associated information about the car and its driver.
It would be highly beneficial if you could also forward a secret call alert to the law enforcement officials. In doing so, you'd always have an edge over others towards curving road rage even though your insurance fails to cover for that. Am I right !
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 09:32 am Post Subject:
Is it true that our claims won't be compensated for any accident caused by road rage ?
i am still loking to get into that.......
but what do you mean by road rage.....
it means like you are on a mission to kill someone
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 09:55 am Post Subject: road rage
I'll try to tell you the meaning. I'm telling you from actually SEEING this, on the road. i was in my car, on the freeway, with my son. I'm ASSUMING these two cars were 'after each other.' Car 'X' was tale gating ( and I mean ALMOST touching the bumper of car 'Y'). They were going about 60 miles per hour. Car 'Y' got away from car 'X'.....swerving in between cars and not looking where he was going. He ALMOST side-swiped two OTHER cars, in the process. It was 'back and forth' with both cars, for while. I stayed as far away as I good. I don't know if they had gotten in an accident or not, but, I hope they din't. I guess you can say they were trying to 'get each other'. Anyway...it's really scary to see. Not just from MY point of view, but, other drivers on the road, I'm sure. Hope this explainantion helped a bit.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:00 am Post Subject: accident
...also I want to add, I have a friend that works for an insurance company. If you were an 'innocent bystander', and someone INVOLVED with the 'road rage' thing, hits your car, I believe you CAN get compensated for this. However.......if you WERE involved with the 'road rage' incident, then, no...I don't believe you can get compensated. Hope this clears things up a bit.
Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:50 am Post Subject:
No insurance policy will cover an ''INTENTIONAL ACT''...that is where the denial comes from....if we are to assume that a road rage instance is 'intentional' or ''a reasonable individual would expect to result from the intional acts of an insured'.....
Re; the 'innocent co-insured'...atleast in MO, this is true but only under the property damage portion doesn't cover the innocent insured for BI, ''however, if an innocent coinsured makes a claim for property damage, which is otherwise covered by coveage be we will not deny coverage for such claim based on the fact that another insured intended to cause the property damage or intended the act causing the property damage. In that situation our liabilitly is limited to the innocent coinsured's ownership interest in the property'... (which I guess means they would pay for half the damage?) and also....under ''Special insuring agreement for coverages A&B, innocent coinsured...the property damage claim of an innocent coinsured will not be denied based solely on the fact that another insured intended the act....this provision applies only to claims under coverage b...." I don't understand myself how they get away with not covering BI for the innocent co-insured...but seems to be what it says...
You understand in otherwords...if your hot headed spouse goes out and does something stupid..(intentionally hits another vehicle) .then you will be protected as the innocent coinsured...and they will pay to fix the other (truely innocent) parties vehicle...however, if they were injured...then that injury is totally denied... :?
now if there is no 'innocent' coinsured on the policy...then the p.d. claim also would be denied...and the victim of the roadrage would have to look for the repair cost from their insured under their collision coverage, then their company would go after the 'bad guy'....
Also this (road rage) wouldn't be considered (IMO) a 'road hazard' claim...a road hazard claim are things like, the vehicle in front of you kicks up a rock and hits your vehicle...etc.
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 03:49 am Post Subject:
Intentional acts are usually excluded under the liability portion of the policy but it's _extremely_ difficult to get away with this denial. First, who's going to flat out admit that they intended on running into someone? You'd have to be extremely stupid to do that but even stupider to admit to it. Also, many states hold the owner responsible for the use of their vehicle. So if it was someone other then the owner driver, the policy would not excluded liability coverage to the owner... just the driver. In my experience it's usually someone who does not own the vehicle that pulls a bonehead move like what is being described. Go figure.
Many policies also have a "commision of a felony" exclusion. But this usually won't apply either.
Lastly, any denial like this is walking on thin ice for an insurance company as it goes against public policy. Judges/juries don't like to see innocent people being penalized for the stupidity of another. Most carriers I know of would simply pay the claim and non-renew the person's policy.
With that said, I handled a claim where two people were racing. One stopped but the other one ran into the rear of my insureds car (my insured was simply stopped at a light). That other driver then got out and ran away. That other owners carrier tried to deny the claim as they had an exclusion for "racing" and also for "hit and run". I had to point out that their policy defined racing as basically being a sanctioned event and the "hit and run" was not a "hit and run" (he hit and then ran... but on foot) and that this occurred after the accident. I was told these denials were from a supervisor :( . I think someone higher up eventually got wise as they paid the claim.
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 03:49 am Post Subject: road rage
Some people DO get away with this. I know OF a few people who actually STARTED the 'road rsge', was injuried in 'it', and was compensated for the injuries. OMG!! How can this LEGALLY happen?!
Posted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 01:47 pm Post Subject:
As an intructer I had years ago use to say... "Is stupidity covered? Yes, all the time".
Add your comment