Posted on 10/27/2023 11:16:13 AM PDT by vespa300
No, the company guy she talked to said to her, “Well, if you’re one of those women’s libbers, we don’t want you as a customer, anyway.” That’s how long ago this was. LOL
Saving in case I need you.
No, it makes perfect sense to risk analyzing this out.
If you got kids + cars living under one roof, guess what? It could happen, and it does.
Years ago, I stored an old pickup at my dad’s while I was stationed overseas. “Someone” borrowed it, and totaled it, an at-fault collision with possible injury. T-boned someone running a red light.
None of this was revealed to me at the time.
Let’s not get sidetracked, there has got to be more to this story than they are letting on. Who was driving the vehicle, the insured?
Proof of financial responsibility - nobody has to purchase liability insurance with the exception of maybe one state, but the only alternative is to post a bond, and it is held in escrow. Nobody does that. Not very many.
The teen down the street will break into your car.
Like he did to mine.
Policy holders who are forced to park in the street get more damage. Garage holders get a discount, no way around that. Drunk drivers pay higher rates. Young Teen Males pay higher rates. More collisions. Married adults in their 50s get a discount - they tend to drive better.
Once you see how mutual insurance is set up it actually works pretty good. Regulation to some degree destroys the concept. People hate insurance companies almost as much as lawyers and politicians but, it’s the latter who muddle everything up.
Some states, it is required for insurance companies, that windshield replacement is “Free”. Guess what. Ain’t nothin’ “Free”.
There have been cases of very young siblings teaming up to drive a car.
One on the pedals and one on the wheel.
“His insurance company, National General, later told him in a letter that, since Preciao had not named his son as an excluded driver, his policy was being rescinded, and, as a result, his claim was denied and his premium was refunded.”
Canceling the insurance retroactively like this should be highly illegal. Just imagine that you house burns down and the insurance company just cancels your insurance retroactively for any number of reasons. You didn’t have a smoke detector in a certain location or whatever. This just wrong on so many levels.
You are so right. And I have never heard of anything like this and could have never imagined it. It is the insurance company that committed fraud here by canceling someones insurance retroactively. Onto the USSC if necessary.
I think it passes a reasonableness test because it requests info on only those who live in the same domicile. Reminds me, I have two teenage granddaughters living here I need to declare.
Did he buy it from a lizard?
“The purpose of car insurance is to provide proof of insurance coverage so you can show it to the police if you get pulled over.”
Correct however if you are an illegal alien you do not need car insurance. Auto insurance is only required for American citizens.
My family was in the insurance agency business for decades.
One day one of the longtime insured’s wife went out into the garage and picked up a jerry can of gasoline. She went back into the house and poured gasoline all over the place and then set it on fire.
As she walked out of the front door of the burning house the police rolled up. What they saw was her coming out of the house with the gasoline can. The house burned to the ground.
Did the insurer (AEtna) pay the claim on the destroyed house under their homeowners’ policy? Yes. Why? Because the husband was also an insured who had nothing to do with the fire and the wife had been going to a psychiatrist. $225,000.00.
So it might not be necessary for me to declare excluded, non-driving (teenage) house residents, although I stated my intention to do so in #50? (WA resident). Or it would still be prudent to declare them, although retroactive cancellation is not an issue in this state? OTOH they might raise my premiums just by virtue of knowing about them.
It costs, on average, about $10,000 to initiate a lawsuit. The better approach would be to contact the Insurance commission.
I don’t know about other States, but in Oklahoma, the Insurance Commission is designed to benefit insurance companies.
does this apply to adult relatives who live in the home?
Interesting.
Yeah, her medical involvement saved them. Otherwise the arson by insured would have been considered a criminal act which (I think) would have justified non-payment of claim.
The claim had nothing to with anything caused by his teenagers. And this is full on Insurance company fraud. I hope that some law firm offers to take them to court and make them pay 1000 times over.
I didn’t say the accident had anything to do with his teenager and the insurance company’s behavior evidently is not illegal in California. Your emotional opinion is not relevant legally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.