Putting Kids on Insurance or Not

[CaptiveGuy]

"In the interest of keeping clients happy, many of the policy provisions are not followed strictly. What the policy jacket reads and how claims are handled are two different things. "

Crap had a long thing all written out to respond and s hit, gone.

in the shortest answer possible, in these situations you are hoping the insurance carrier makes a business decision rather than following the policy to the letter of the contract. The insured, while failing to disclose pertenent information, has to be hopeful, they'll be covered.

This is where the forest for the trees comes in. On a certain day, in a certain state, at a certain time, ya sure you have coverage, but if anything happens, well you hope they understand.

I am sorry for being so harsh, but I do get alittle po'd when someone makes statements that could lead an insured in a state where ISO doesn't work the way it does in your state, into a serious mistake. the start of this post was about a lady who purposely was excluding a of age driver to keep her premiums down. A bad idea and simply something that shouldn't be encouraged in a public forum.

Yes, if the stars aline, you can pull it off. but really on a national forum, is it a good idea to post without clarifying what states and what companies work that way?
M

Gilmore, I don't disagree I worked in claims before becoming an agent and I went to my claims manager with the same rationale when getting approval to deny claims. The company basically has these provisions in to deny claims if necessary but I'll go out on a limb and say no company follows the policy language strictly. I will say I am in MD and the companies I am familiar with are The Hartford and Liberty Mutual.

I do have my CPCU designation so I'm not some random $40k a year, full of BS agent. I'm telling you from experience not from the policy jacket. You are correct in your interpretation but sadly clients can get away with a lot of the crap they pull .

 

[LGilmore]

thanks. The thing is as an agent we should never, I mean NEVER encourage a client to do something that would put a claims situation into "business decision" mode for a carrier. And by business decision I mean the payment or nonpayment of a claim is not to the contract provisions but by the goodwill of the company.

It is great that they do it and I am sure they do it in cases where an honest mistake was made or where the claim cost is relatively small. But I am also sure that when a insured intentionally commits fraud and the bill is upthere, they'll walk if it's the better choice.

An agent should NEVER encourage an insured into that possibility because simply when or if the insurance company says "no" the first person sued is going to be the writing agent.

If an agent doesn't treat their activities with a suspenders and belt approach with clients, well.. usually they don't last long.

 

[VolAgent]

Gilmore, I don't disagree I worked in claims before becoming an agent and I went to my claims manager with the same rationale when getting approval to deny claims. The company basically has these provisions in to deny claims if necessary but I'll go out on a limb and say no company follows the policy language strictly. I will say I am in MD and the companies I am familiar with are The Hartford and Liberty Mutual.

I do have my CPCU designation so I'm not some random $40k a year, full of BS agent. I'm telling you from experience not from the policy jacket. You are correct in your interpretation but sadly clients can get away with a lot of the crap they pull .

And how many of those times going to bat for the client with the manager could have been avoided if the agent had given proper advice in the beginning? It is great when a company goes above and beyond what is required in the policy, but for an agent to advise a policyholder to rely on a company's goodwill is plain ignorance at best, and outright fraud in most situations.

All it takes is a change in company culture, or a few years of bad claims experience for the company to take a hard line on claims and deny all questionable claims, or claims that are not covered by contract language.

 

[CaptiveGuy]

And how many of those times going to bat for the client with the manager could have been avoided if the agent had given proper advice in the beginning? It is great when a company goes above and beyond what is required in the policy, but for an agent to advise a policyholder to rely on a company's goodwill is plain ignorance at best, and outright fraud in most situations.

All it takes is a change in company culture, or a few years of bad claims experience for the company to take a hard line on claims and deny all questionable claims, or claims that are not covered by contract language.

...Oh believe me that is one of the reasons I left claims (aside from the money) was the inconsistency. I was under the impression we were actually trying to help clients, but claims interpretations varied greatly.

As an agent I would NEVER advise against the policy provisions I just know some claims are paid in "good will". Yourself and Gilmore are correct I was just saying a lot of companies don't follow the policy provisions which leads folks like the OP to think they can get away with misrepresentation.

 

[VolAgent]

...Oh believe me that is one of the reasons I left claims (aside from the money) was the inconsistency. I was under the impression we were actually trying to help clients, but claims interpretations varied greatly.

As an agent I would NEVER advise against the policy provisions I just know some claims are paid in "good will". Yourself and Gilmore are correct I was just saying a lot of companies don't follow the policy provisions which leads folks like the OP to think they can get away with misrepresentation.

Yes. I heard the personal lines CSR in the office next to me telling someone basically that. The company had changed the policy format a few years ago, and something about the person's policy slipped through the cracks. They'd paid a few claims over the years, but now they were going to deny the newest claim and non-renew. Sounds like the person was pretty well screwed, she couldn't find a company to take the risk, even companies the agency doesn't represent.

 

[Surfy]

The point here is really that young drivers need to be covered and they need to be covered well. I don't think the basic 15/30/10 coverage is near enough for a new driver.

Yet, people spend a boatload of money, each month, on 500 TV stations, mobile web browsing, latest smart phones for their kids, storage units that they haven't been to in over a year, weekly trips to the car wash, etc.

Instead of trying to come up with a way to defraud the insurance company or cut corners, parents should focus on coming up with the extra money needed to properly cover the greatest gift they have been given....their kids.

At our company, when our insureds have children driving age, they have to sign an affidavit acknowledging there is NO COVERAGE if that kid gets behind the wheel unless they are specifically added on as a listed driver.

Surfy

 

[Guest]

better read the policy and insurance documents

What a brilliant comment to bring back a over year old thread AntiChrist!

 

[BlockO]

well... no use crying over spilled milk...... once it's bumped back up, it's up there.

so how did it work out with the SIL? has the stepson wrecked the car yet?

 

[jtm1240]

I disagree. The PAP states that an insured is anyone that is a resident of your household. So if your daughter goes out and cracks up a car or two in an accident, she is covered regardless of whether she is a listed driver or not as she is a resident of the household. However, as an agent, if you pull this on your carrier, kiss your contract goodbye and find another market to roll you business too. Depending on the size of your book, that could be a lot of work.

Air Jer,

You are right on. Best comments so far. I also believe the unendorsed PAP states that it affords coverage to "any legally licensed driver that has permission to drive the vehicle".

It is not a coverage issue it is the company getting the proper premium for the exposure...

jtm1240