by FK » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:40 am
.
.
.
I have a question...
One of my Pennsylvania customers borrowed his Father-in-Law's Pennsylvania automobile. And as luck would have it, a Deer came out of nowhere and damaged the driver's side door. About $700.oo in damage. (two tone paint, painted stripe etc.)
Also being that its an "Extra" vehicle the Father-in-Law only has Liability coverage.
The Son-in-Law who has Liability, Comp, & collision coverage is responsible for the damage and thought His Insurer would cover it... but Son-in-Law's Insurance Agent told him No the insurance would not pay for the repair??
Is the Agent right... or ... is he getting bad information?
.
.
I have a question...
One of my Pennsylvania customers borrowed his Father-in-Law's Pennsylvania automobile. And as luck would have it, a Deer came out of nowhere and damaged the driver's side door. About $700.oo in damage. (two tone paint, painted stripe etc.)
Also being that its an "Extra" vehicle the Father-in-Law only has Liability coverage.
The Son-in-Law who has Liability, Comp, & collision coverage is responsible for the damage and thought His Insurer would cover it... but Son-in-Law's Insurance Agent told him No the insurance would not pay for the repair??
Is the Agent right... or ... is he getting bad information?
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 12:39 pm Post Subject:
Fred, in my state, as far as collision coverage is concerned ( I know this one is comp) If vehicle owner did not have collision, but driver does, then drivers policy should come in as secondary and fix the vehicle under the drivers collision coverage...however, I've got to say, I don't think I've ever had a comp claim like that...one would 'think' it would be the same.....
Before I say this, let me preface it with this...no offense to any agents...
Your friend needs to file the claim...agents (in my experience) know darn little about claims and coverages other than the basics....no agent as far as I know has the authority to deny a claim. And the claim is NEVER denied, until it's done so in writing...So your friend needs to get this claim filed under his policy (pick one with comp :wink: ) and it needs to get to his company's claims dept..THEY and only they can make the decision if there is coverage or not...do let us know...
In the meanwhile, wouldn't hurt to pull his policy out and have a look..to see what it says about temporary replacement vehicles, non-owned autos etc...
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 01:14 pm Post Subject:
Thanks Lori,
I'll Copy/Paste my inquiry & your response into an Email to my customer. (along with a Link to this page)
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 03:49 pm Post Subject: Similar but different (agents making coverage decisions)
I had a customer with a claims coverage question the other day. He backed into a vehicle also owned and insured by him. The agent informed him that he would have to file it under collision on the car he hit. My thoughts were that the liability policy on the vehicle he was driving would cover the damage to the car he struck. I suggested he go back to the agent for clarification in writing. He since has dropped coverage with this company, but I suggested he might consult the DOI in Missouri since it fell under their authority for contractual issues. If the agent misinformed him at the time, would he be liable under the errors and ommissions agent policy?
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 03:59 pm Post Subject: One of my Pennsylvania customers borrowed his Father-in-Law
Automobile insurance follows the vehicle, not the driver (of course the driving record of the vehicle owner will influence the premium). In this instance, the vehicle owner lent his insured auto to another driver. This other driver has a comprehensive loss for a run-in with a deer. The vehicle owner must make a claim with his/her own auto insurance policy. The policy of the actual driver in the incident will be secondary. If the vehicle insurance was not in force at the time of the incident, then the driver's auto insurance (assuming he/she has a policy) will become the primary insurer for the claim.
Good luck.
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:41 pm Post Subject:
Another point to consider is the amount of the deductible. If the damage is only $700, it may or may not be worth filing a claim. I know most people have deductible of $500 with some being more and some being less. I would hate to file a claim and go through the hassle for $200, plus then to see my premium increase!
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:50 pm Post Subject:
My thoughts were that the liability policy on the vehicle he was driving would cover the damage to the car he struck. I suggested he go back to the agent for clarification in writing. He since has dropped coverage with this company
In this case the agent was 100% correct and every insurance company would handle this way (so changing carriers would not change the coverage).The liability portion of the policy states that it will pay when "the insured becomes legally liable" for the damage. A person cannot be liable to themselves. So the liability portion of the policy (of any auto policy) would not address the insured causing damage to their own vehicle (for any reason).
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:54 pm Post Subject:
The Son-in-Law who has Liability, Comp, & collision coverage is responsible for the damage and thought His Insurer would cover it... but Son-in-Law's Insurance Agent told him No the insurance would not pay for the repair??
As mentioned, I'd take this with a grain of salt. An adjuster does not have the authority of the insurance company to deny coverage... which he/she is doing in this case.While I'd say most policies would allow the drivers comprehensive coverage to address this loss on an "excess" basis (in this case, excess over nothing), I'd also say that we all realize how many carriers are changing standard policies in order to fit the premiums that they are charging. It all comes down to the Other Insurance wording on the drivers policy.
Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:07 pm Post Subject:
A person cannot be liable to themselves
Took the words right outta my mouth...I know it ''seems'' that way Mike, and most people think it should go under the PD portion...but alas, and again, 'you cannot be liable to yourself' if he damaged both vehicles it would be collision losses on each, with their respective deductibles...An adjuster does not have the authority of the insurance company to deny coverage... which he/she is doing in this case.
aaaahmmmmmm, I'm SURE Tcope meant to say, ''agent'' rather than ''adjuster''...The adjuster (or claims dept) are the only ones that CAN deny coverage...NEVER EVER can an agent...well unless maybe, no no they can NEVER...EVER deny a claim, or coverage...Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:16 pm Post Subject:
aaaahmmmmmm, I'm SURE Tcope meant to say, ''agent'' rather than ''adjuster''...The adjuster
Well... even I can't deny a 1st party loss (without approval). :lol: But yes... I meant to type agent. :wink:Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:08 am Post Subject:
The liability portion of the policy states that it will pay when "the insured becomes legally liable" for the damage. A person cannot be liable to themselves. So the liability portion of the policy (of any auto policy) would not address the insured causing damage to their own vehicle (for any reason).
I probably conceived this notion because there was a time when both cars were insured with the same carrier and deductibles were fifty dollars, they were often waived by a large number of carriers. I assumed the same when you hit your own car. See even I learn something here.
Add your comment