Insurance gripes

ParaDygm wrote:
> It's not fair, it's discriminatory.... unless you can post a liability
> bond with the state you live. Basically, you'd need to set the minimum
> liability (usually $25000.00) in Bond Account and prove that you have
> the assetts to uphold extended fault liability. Then you dont have
> insurance (self insured).

At least $35k. California's limits of 15/30/5 are the lowest in the
nation.

Wealthy individuals and companies can get permission to self-insure
without posting a bond.

John David Galt wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
> > do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
> > insurance companies making more money?
>
> a) By law, the insurance covers the car no matter who is driving it.
> Even if you told them about everyone who lives with you, you might have
> the habit of lending it to a friend or neighbor (which you wouldn't
> legally have to tell the company about unless you give him his own key).

Then the friend/neighbor would have his own insurance; it would be
sensible to NOT allow him to borrow the car otherwise.

> [I'm not a lawyer, but I did just pass my insurance agent test.]

UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!

--
Cheers,
Bev
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to
spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and
begin slitting throats." -- H.L. Mencken

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:24:28 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:01:50 -0600,
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article .com>, wrote:
>>>> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
>>>> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
>>>> insurance companies making more money?
>>>
>>>I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
>>>insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.
>>
>> If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to
>> carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to
>> drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time.
>
>That would be their problem. Why should I pay the insurance for someone
>else renting a car? Why should I pay insurance for someone who will never
>drive my cars? If someone not on my policy without their own
>insurance wrecks my car, the claim will likely be denied anyway the way
>things seem to work.

It's been my experience and observations that this isn't true; if I
give someone permission to (legally) drive my car, my insurance covers
it.
And it's not just my insurance company that's done this.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

John David Galt wrote:
> wrote:
> > 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i
can
> > do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
> > insurance companies making more money?
>
> a) By law, the insurance covers the car no matter who is driving it.
> Even if you told them about everyone who lives with you, you might
have
> the habit of lending it to a friend or neighbor (which you wouldn't
> legally have to tell the company about unless you give him his own
key).

I mean besides it being a law the insurance companies dictated. I
should have the option of owning my car and deciding only I can drive
it so I don't have to pay more insurance. I understand you are an agent
and all but even you have to admit it is a crock.


> [I'm not a lawyer, but I did just pass my insurance agent test.]
>
> b) You could very well wreck the first car today, then switch to
driving
> the second car and wreck it tomorrow. In fact mathematically,
someone
> who just had a wreck is much more likely than the average person to
have
> another.

That would be no different than me wrecking my only car, getting a new
car that same day, and wrecking it. Either way I am not wrecking them
at the same time but at different times.

> > 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my
car
> > goes down?
>
> If it's liability coverage, it shouldn't. For comp & collision, it
can,
> but you have to request a reduction in the coverage limits. The
company
> can't read your mind.

Sorry, I was talking about full coverage. My house insurance has
steadily gone up with the value of my house, yet my full coverage for
my car stays the same even though the value of my car goes down. It
would actually be cheaper for me to sell my car and buy one exactly
like it, or to switch agencies. That way I am paying insurance on a 5
year old car and not a "brand new" 5 year old car.

On 10 Mar 2005 14:59:20 -0800, "Furious George" >
wrote:

>
wrote:
>> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i
>can
>> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
>> insurance companies making more money?
>
>If you're talking about liability, it doesn't matter whether you wreck
>your own car or not. You could with car #1 wreck someone else's car in
>the morning and with car #2 wreck someone else's car in the evening.
>Another possibility is that you could lend your cars to other people
>and they could actually wreck simultaneously.
>
>>
>> 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my
>car
>> goes down?
>
>Because you are not insuring your equity in the car. You are assuring
>against liability caused by your car. A POS car can generate just as
>much liability as a top of the line model. If anything your rates
>should go up because your brakes, etc are getting older.

Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
lesser valus of the vehicle.

I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 10 Mar 2005 17:16:18 -0800, wrote:

>I should have been more specific...
>
>1. Why do I not have the option to keep a second car (liability only)
>for me and me alone in case my first car breaks or what not and not pay
>any more insurance. If that means others can't drive it so be it. I
>currently pay full coverage for my new car, and to keep my second
>(cheaper) car I have to pay more per month. If I wreck my first car,
>the insurance agency is out the cost of a new car plus the cost of the
>car I hit. If I were to have been driving my 2nd car my insurance
>agency would only be out the cost of the car I hit. In every case it is
>cheaper for my insurance company if I have a second POS car, yet I
>still have to pay more. If anything I should get a discount for the
>times I drive my POS.

You're talling about two different kinds of insurance he liability
and collision.
On the first car, liability pays for the other car, collision pays for
yours.
On the second (POS) car, why have collision?
>
>2. I'm talking about full coverage. Why doesn't my rate go down when my
>car gets older? If I buy a 2005 car and get it insured full coverage I
>pay the rate for a brand new car the whole time I own it. 5 years down
>the road I'm still paying the full rate, yet if someone else were to
>buy my exact same car in 2010 they would get the rate of a 5 year old
>car. The only way I can get the cheaper rate would be to switch
>insurance or sell my car and buy one just like it.

Define "full coverage".
Is that the minimum required liability by the state, or someother
combination of
liability/collision/comprehensive/uninsured/underinsured policy?
What limits?
I've actually heard people claim they have "full coverage" (as defined
by the agent) that is only minimum liability coverage.

The fact that you say your full coverage doesn't get cheaper as the
car ages leqads me to believ ethe car itself isn't insured, but you're
only carrying liability insurance. Collision coverage usually gets
less expensive as the value of the car goes down with age.

Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:26:51 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:

>> 2. And why doesn't my insurance go down even though the value of my car
>> goes down?
>
>If it's liability coverage, it shouldn't. For comp & collision, it can,
>but you have to request a reduction in the coverage limits. The company
>can't read your mind.

The insurance company does know the value decreases, so the cost
should go down. (Ours does.)
But you're right, they won't decrease the limits without your request.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

> Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
> lesser valus of the vehicle.
>
> I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
> collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.
>

Probably more people carry it than SHOULD carry it, in fact. After a car is
a couple of years old, you are losing money by paying for
collision/comprehensive coverage. (Even if your 2-year-old car is
"totalled", you won't get enough from the insurance company to make a
significant down payment on a new car, because they pay you wholesale value,
which is about 1/2 of retail value, which in turn is about 1/2 of what you
probably believe your car is worth, ha ha) But if your car is still
financed, you have no choice but to carry collision/comp. -Dave

In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:24:28 -0600,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>If someone not on my policy without their own
>>insurance wrecks my car, the claim will likely be denied anyway the way
>>things seem to work.
>
> Uh, no. YOUR insurance will pay.

Given the way things work, they'll find a way to deny it.

But again, why should I pay for people without their own auto insurance
to drive my car, when they never, ever, will?

If people intend to loan their vehicles to people who don't have their
own cars, then they could pay extra on THEIR policies to do that. If
people without their own cars are renting vehicles, they pay for their
own insurance at the rental counter. Simple.

In article >, John David Galt wrote:
>> (Brent P) wrote:
>>> I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
>>> insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.

> I agree. Although then there would be more disputes after a hit-and-run
> when the car can be identified but the driver can't. (Not to mention the
> case where it's parked and rolls down a hill -- yes, the last driver is
> liable but good luck finding out who he was!)

Easy to have that much smaller risk covered on the car, like comprehensive.

> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>> If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to
>> carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to
>> drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time.

> In some states this is already required. Even where it isn't, you can
> buy "non-owner" coverage, & without it most rental car companies won't
> rent to you.

The thing is, someone with a license who doesn't have a car and doesn't
carry his own insurance is going to be paying through the nose when he
does get a car.