Flat screen covered by homeowners

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:00 am Post Subject:

So in your part of the world. Just any accidental damage is covered?

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 03:19 pm Post Subject:

I had a carrier pay for damage to a hardwood floor from a ladies high heel shoe that lost the rubber tip and screwed up the floor pretty good.

Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 08:15 pm Post Subject:

Lori,

Not quite but close. there is a general definition of accidental damage in the policy wording, something like:

"Physical damage occurring as a result of a sudden, unforseen and unexpected external event"

If the incident giving rise to the claim falls withing this definition the event is covered PROVIDED no exclusions apply. there is generally an exclusion relating to misuse of the property, malicious or intentional damage and various other circumstances.

In essence but the basic principal is reversed, where a set perils policy sets out the circumstances under which you are covered, with the default position being that you are not covered unless the claim circumstances are specifically listed, an accidental damage policy operates the other way. Provided the event falls within the AD definition the default position is that you are covered UNLESS an exclusion applies.

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:01 am Post Subject:

I had a carrier pay for damage to a hardwood floor from a ladies high heel shoe that lost the rubber tip and screwed up the floor pretty good.

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 06:44 am Post Subject:

Lori, it was under first party coverage. They ended up re-finishing the entire floor in the kitchen and dining room so it would match. This was against my recommendation as I was looking at it the same way you are. The carrier involved was known in our office as a "payer". Claims always go smoothly when you just pay...I learned the hard way when I argued with them during my first claim I handled for them. After that I just sent in my estimate and asked what they wanted to do.

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 12:03 pm Post Subject:

The problem with that kind of thing is 'neighboritis' and Mrs. Jones (next door to your stiletto lady) with State Farm, Allstate, (pick a carrier) has the same claim and can't understand why the neighbor lady got her floor fixed, and Mrs. Jones carrier (rightfully) denies hers. Then it's a BAD carrier, and BAD adjuster :roll: :wink:

Geeze, sounds like the same carrier Tcope works for :wink: Wish it were that 'easy' all the time...but then again, where would our rates be if all carriers paid all claims, that weren't owed?

Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 08:56 pm Post Subject:

It's an interesting trade off really.

Carrier A has more open claims paying, so pays out more in claims but is likely to attract more customers by word of mouth and maintain them longer.

Carrier B doesn't pay as much in claims, but can suffer from negative comparrisons and lose business by remaining true to the intention of the policy.

On the flip side, carrier A can probably also afford to slightly inflate their premiums a little and still keep the business as they are percieved as a "good" insurer.

If A's customer service processes and service levels in general are good they cana slo justify they increase premium on the basis of better claims turn around time and general service levels - pitching themselves as a "quality" provider.

there's a legitimate marketing strategy here if it's an intentional approach by the insurer - sadly this is probably not the case. More likley they have simply got under trained or overstretched staffing numbers so they don't want to get into the fights that come with declining claims.

Judicious claims paying "flexibility" can be a good strategy, particularly if you want to increase your market sampling and drive enquiries to your sales channel. It then comes down to portraying the right image to justify an increased premium and impress the prospects with your professionalism and service level so they feel it's justified. If done well it can create an effective point of difference.