Good Insurance Commercials - but...Is this Really Covered?

[Lee Vena]

Using mayhem as the word to describe events covered is misleading. Virtually any definition of mayhem describes it as a willful act, which we all know is generally excluded by the vast majority of insurance policies.

This commercial, on the other hand, is pure gold. These were my favorite when they were on TV, and while they're part of the general decline in respect for the entire profession of insurance, they're still funny.

I am a life and health guy, so pardon the lack of knowledge. But the issue of willful act does not feel right to me. By way of example, if someone purposely sets fire to my house I cannot collect insurance money for it, assuming it was covered.

 

[adjusterjack]

I have thought about the B-ball Mayhem commercial. I think the guy that broke the hoop doesn't live there, so the commercial is referring to "Off Premises Liability" coverage.

I didn't get that from the video but let's use it as an example. Hoopster visits, jumps up and negligently causes damage. The home owner's insurance covers the damage and seeks reimbursement from hoopster. Hoopster's own liability insurance would pay.

I am a life and health guy, so pardon the lack of knowledge.

Lack of knowledge can be remedied by reading your policy.

But the issue of willful act does not feel right to me. By way of example, if someone purposely sets fire to my house I cannot collect insurance money for it, assuming it was covered.

Depends on who that someone is. If a member of your household (defined as "an insured") purposely sets the fire (arson) then, no, it would not be covered because it was an intentional act by "an insured."

If somebody else set the fire, if would be covered.

 

[Lee Vena]

I didn't get that from the video but let's use it as an example. Hoopster visits, jumps up and negligently causes damage. The home owner's insurance covers the damage and seeks reimbursement from hoopster. Hoopster's own liability insurance would pay.




Lack of knowledge can be remedied by reading your policy.



Depends on who that someone is. If a member of your household (defined as "an insured") purposely sets the fire (arson) then, no, it would not be covered because it was an intentional act by "an insured."

If somebody else set the fire, if would be covered.

I understand that completly, what threw me was when Alex stated otherwise.

 

[Al3x Lee]

if someone purposely sets fire to my house I cannot collect insurance money for it, assuming it was covered.

If somebody else set the fire, if would be covered.

Jack is correct, this is usually defined as vandalism in your policy. While vandalism is a deliberate and malicious act of causing damage or destruction to someone's property, if it's caused by a third party and without a conspiracy to commit insurance fraud by the insured, it's usually covered. Policy exclusions can apply though, so make sure to check what's in your policy.

What's not covered is if you intentionally damage your own property. If it was an accident, it's covered.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/vandalism-and-malicious-mischief-insurance.asp

 

[Al3x Lee]

I understand that completly, what threw me was when Alex stated otherwise.

I am the theocratic dictator of the P&C section of insurance-forums.com. Anything I say overrides any policy provisions or logic and shall not be questioned

 

[Policy Monkey]

I am the theocratic dictator of the P&C section of insurance-forums.com. Anything I say overrides any policy provisions or logic and shall not be questioned

Screw it, I'm on board. Al3x Lee for NATIONAL Insurance Commissioner! The feds would have to create the position, but with Al3x's level of confidence and authority, why wouldn't they?

 

[Al3x Lee]

Screw it, I'm on board. Al3x Lee for NATIONAL Insurance Commissioner! The feds would have to create the position, but with Al3x's level of confidence and authority, why wouldn't they?

I appreciate the support and love the idea. National would be best. In fact, I can't think of anything better than taking my ACV proposals and applying them to the entire nation. Also, I'm pretty sure those pesky regulators, bureaucrats, and attorneys won't mind me casually proclaiming myself as the National Insurance Dictator.

It's time for people to be excited by insurance.. maybe what this industry needs is a touch of controversy.

I have another proposal to work on after we tackle the issue of proper building valuations. Why are we still calling inland marine coverage inland marine?

 

[adjusterjack]

NATIONAL Insurance Commissioner! The feds would have to create the position,

The question of federal regulation of the insurance industry has been hotly debated for a long, long time.

See:

11618-00_FM_rev.qxd (brookings.edu)

 

[fed up]

Depends on who that someone is. If a member of your household (defined as "an insured") purposely sets the fire (arson) then, no, it would not be covered because it was an intentional act by "an insured."
I was a producer for a large carrier who writes in all states and a child of a client was autistic. The child set fire to the home on 2 separate occasions and the carrier paid. Also could not get off the policy and still covered by company. It was a willful act but was argued that the child did not understand.

 

[marindependent]

One question that popped up in my mind was - Was the hoop Installed and maintained properly ?