[deleted] t1_j6kukak wrote
Reply to comment by Freethecrafts in Other person's car insurance may not cover my car repair, even though they backed into my parked car? by SereneFrost72
No corruption here, insurance is a contract if you lie on it not anyones fault but your own.
Freethecrafts t1_j6kv5i4 wrote
Vehicle insurance is required by law, that’s why the majority of policies exist. If a vendor is allowed to unilaterally decide after the fact that insurance is not valid on claims, then the policies being sold do not qualify as road coverage. Vendors need to guarantee vehicles under their policies or their capacity to act as underwriter/agents should be stripped.
The case above is one of a vendor attempting to disallow coverage and leave OP holding bad debt. This type of chicanery should not be allowed at all.
[deleted] t1_j6l2osu wrote
They don’t decide after the fact. At the start of the policy as well as during the underwriting process it specifically excludes business use and most will ask will you be using it for business. If you answer no to this question it’s misrepresentation. Don’t get me wrong there’s a plethora of things wrong with insurance but this is not one of them. People need to read their policies and understand what is and is not covered.
Freethecrafts t1_j6l3vkc wrote
No, policies should cover the basics of what the laws require. Setting a stipulation within a contract that invalidates the coverage for which a vendor is required to provide proof is exactly the type of avoidance that mandated vehicle coverage in the first place. It’s great and all that some scam artist with a high school education decided they could stipulate something to deny claims, but they should be charged with multiple felonies for that same act.
Either insurance covers a vehicle or not. If there is no coverage, that vehicle should not be licensed and no premiums should be paid. That vehicle should not be on the public roads if coverage and license are not granted. That’s the deal that you think can be violated to deny claims.
[deleted] t1_j6l6q5r wrote
The vehicle is covered for the agreed use lol. You’re misunderstanding, most insurance companies will write policies that include business use but if you lie and don’t tell them how can they know to include it? Should every single person pay increased premiums because the insurance company is assuming that every single person is driving for business? Does that make sense
Freethecrafts t1_j6l8wkb wrote
I understand the argument. I also understand that to underwrite a policy and provide documentation is to guarantee under penalty of law that a vehicle carries liability coverage at all times during a duration. Deciding you can stipulate against that requirement while providing guarantees is to be noncompliant at best. I’m just taking that to the logical conclusion of an underwriter taking fees while denying coverage that leaves a victim holding the bag, then putting out there that there should be multiple felonies attached to the underwriter and their agents. I understand you don’t want to understand what’s been done, but guaranteeing a vehicle to have coverage to a federal agency when in fact you do not could very easily be fraud.
[deleted] t1_j6lb0e6 wrote
I completely agree the insured party who lied about the vehicles use has committed fraud not the insurance company or the agent or the underwriter. 100% and driving without insurance is in fact a crime. But you can’t blame an insurance company because someone misrepresented their situation to bypass obtaining the right insurance. Also if an insurance company can’t stipulate the policy terms which the policy holder agrees to when purchasing what stops everyone from lying? Why can’t I buy insurance by the mile say I drive 1 mile a year and pay $1 annual premium now you have to cover me? Come you cannot possibly believe that every insurer should insure 100% of every singe claim if the policy was misrepresented at the time of purchase.
Freethecrafts t1_j6lc06s wrote
Again, disingenuous. The underwriter is required to provide coverage for a vehicle in order to be allowed to provide proof of insurance. That is the requirement. Otherwise, any scammer could provide “insurance” from an Indian call center, then disallow all responsibilities for whatever clause. The fraud is by the insurance company and their agents when they insure a vehicle, guarantee coverage, then stipulate against coverage in such a way that a third party would be left with the same limited recourse as existed before such insurance was mandatory. Either only sell fully functional policies, get out of the business, or expect to go to jail.
I absolutely think the underwriter should bear responsibility. If they want to go back on the insured for some stipulation, fine, don’t care. But outright denying claims fails on multiple criteria for an underwriter.
Charred_Steak_Nubbs t1_j6livtv wrote
You could not be more inaccurate in your assessment.
Every policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer. In that policy contract the insurer outlines the terms of the coverages and any exclusions. These policies are reviewed and approved by each state in order for the insurer to use the policies.
Let me use an example for you. A person purchases insurance and pays the first monthly installment of their 6 month policy. The insurance company then mails the insured their proof of insurance for the 6 month policy period and declarations page. Coverage is contingent on the insured continuing to pay their monthly premiums. Let’s say the customer doesn’t pay after the first month and their policy cancels due to non payment. Should the insurance company be on the hook for the remainder of the original policy? The answer is no, the policy cancels due to non payment and there won’t be any coverage after the cancellation date despite what the proof of insurance says.
Freethecrafts t1_j6ljjfh wrote
Insurance companies are required to provide an up to date listing with local enforcement and have a real time validation. You both misunderstand what the “card” is and what it represents.
You still refuse to understand that an underwriter is required to insure a vehicle for at fault claims. That’s the deal for being allowed to exist within that regulated environment. Leaving a third party without a means of payment for a vehicle you insured is a violation of that regulation. If you have a stipulation between yourself and the insured, go after them for that stipulation afterwards. At no time should an insured vehicle on the road leave an aggrieved third party without means to be made whole.
Charred_Steak_Nubbs t1_j6lklsl wrote
You can believe what you want but it’s wrong. There are uninsured vehicles and drivers all over the place driving around and there is no requirement that insurance companies are required to force coverage on those vehicles.
The DMV receives insurance information from insurers. Insurers are also regulated by the state DOI. Don’t take it from me though, do your own research.
Freethecrafts t1_j6lmfmj wrote
Never said insurance companies are required to force coverage. I said insurers are required to guarantee coverage for their policy holders. That’s the market requirement. To exist in the market, you have to be bonded and guarantee to cover fault.
I’m sure your idea of stipulating against regulation is going to work out well. Be sure to keep records on every denial, they’ll be necessary.
Sure, lots of vehicles without any insurance. And for that there’s hefty fines and possible jail time for people using public roads without following the laws. You keep trying to convolute drivers and the state where this discussion is on insurers and their regulators.
You’ve really sold me on the idea of felony charges for insurers who deny coverage for at fault claims based on some contract stipulation. The very idea that you could outright stipulate against the foundations of the system requirements is absurd. It’s good timing too.
[deleted] t1_j6mmqwd wrote
You’re fundamentally wrong insurers are not required to guarantee coverage. Drivers are required to have coverage not the other way around. The insurance company has done nothing to stop the effected third party from collecting. The third party would file shit against the at fault driver. You as the driver is responsible to have the appropriate insurance. Not understanding this is such a cop out for any responsibility is mind blowing to me. Nothing is anyone’s fault right? Only person to blame the insurance company as usual. As I said earlier plenty of things wrong with insurance but you’re barking up the wrong tree. You have a very poor understanding of the law if you believe the insurance company is the one to “guarantee” coverage. You can actually check case studies on this it has been checked and checked again in the courts and you’re wrong every time
Charred_Steak_Nubbs t1_j6lqx9l wrote
Maybe it’s different in your state as insurance regulations are made at the state level, but in my state it’s contract law. The state approves the policy for use and the insurer issues and binds the policies. The insurer and the insured both have to comply to the terms and the applicable policy language in the contract. The policy will outline the coverage and situations where coverage will not apply. As long as the insurer is operating within the parameters of the policy contract they can deny coverage if applicable. If the insured disagrees they can file a complaint with their state’s department of insurance, but as long as the insurer is operating within the language of the contract the denial’s likely stand.
This is how it works in my state (Oregon). There are no absolutes with coverage and it always comes down to the policy language in the contract which has been filed and approved with the state.
[deleted] t1_j6lcskt wrote
Lol I genuinely can’t tell if this is a joke like you’re pranking me. You’re telling me a contract signed by both parties prior to it becoming in force should still stand if one party lies? So say I buy your house for $1 million dollars I move in and then never pay you there’s no recourse? You honored your end of the bargain but I lied. But contract is still valid I get the house and you never get your money. This has to be a troll post? You’re saying that lying to receive the benefit should require the benefit to still be provided? An insurance company denying coverage does not stop the claimant from filing suit against the at fault party. I just think you misunderstand how contracts, insurance, and the law works frankly.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments