Car Theft Question-Florida

[John Wolff]

So a little while back my wife was house sitting for someone and in the middle of the night her car was stolen. She was leasing her car and her insurance dealt with the car company and payed them. The problem is she had her laptop and a few other things worth about $5000. Her auto insurance says they do not cover that and to call her home owners, however, her homeowners says they don't because it wasn't at her house. So who is supposed to cover it?

 

[adjusterjack]

Her auto insurance says they do not cover that

True.

her homeowners says they don't because it wasn't at her house

The standard Homeowners 3 - Special Form says this:

C. Coverage C – Personal Property
1. Covered Property
We cover personal property owned or used by an "insured" while it is anywhere in the world.

She can find that in her own policy unless she has some sort of proprietary homeowners with some very strange provisions or that there is something else going on.

Who, exactly, told her that it wasn't covered? Her agent? A company claim rep? Under what circumstances? Did she get a claim number? Did she get a letter explaining why it wasn't covered? Denial letters typically quote the policy provisions that apply.

I'll be happy to provide more help but you need to put your wife in front of the computer with her policy on the desk in front of her so she can answer questions direct instead of me getting second hand information from you.

 

[InsCommentary]

Virtually all decent HO policies cover personal property worldwide with minor exceptions. I've seen policies from 'substandard' HO carriers that limit off-premises coverage to 10% of the otherwise applicable limit. I've seen fewer that limit coverage only to the premises and/or to property "usual to a dwelling." There are some HORRIBLE policy forms in use in Florida. I've seen agents selling ISO HO-8 and claiming they're almost identical to HO-3 forms.

This illustrates why insurance is NOT a commodity where the only significant difference is price. Anyone who shops on price alone on the presumption that policies are pretty much the same is sadly mistaken. Shame on insurance regulators for allowing such policy forms in the marketplace, at least without requiring clear and conspicuous warning.

“There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man’s lawful prey.” - John Ruskin

 

[adjusterjack]

Virtually all decent HO policies cover personal property worldwide with minor exceptions. I've seen policies from 'substandard' HO carriers that limit off-premises coverage to 10% of the otherwise applicable limit. I've seen fewer that limit coverage only to the premises and/or to property "usual to a dwelling." There are some HORRIBLE policy forms in use in Florida.

Right. I retired from an E & S company that wrote those policies. When it came to theft coverage our exposure was next to nothing. But we didn't hide anything. Those limitations were not buried in the policy booklet, it was in a separate two page form written in plain English.

Anybody reading it would have understood the limitations and taken precautions to safeguard their property.

Don't blame the insurance companies when the insurance buying public throws the policy in a drawer without even looking at it.

 

[InsCommentary]

Jack, but they all do. Pretty much all of them. Not to mention probably a majority of licensed agents based on the inquiries I get from agents whose questions are easily answered by reading the policy.

And, even if they do read the material, it's long after they've bought the policy. It's like rental car agreements...nobody reads them in advance even though they're readily available online (with insurance policies you can't because carriers won't let you unless you access your DOI or NAIC database) and they sure won't hold up a line of renters to read a multi-page document.

I'm increasingly in favor of some minimum coverage standards for liability insurance at least, just as we have minimum auto liability limits. The purpose of liability insurance is to protect the public. Allowing consumers to choose substandard coverage at a discounted rate doesn't protect the public. Regulators permitting grossly deficient liability insurance policies in the marketplace abdicate their responsibility.

Of course, I could be wrong.