Insurance gripes

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:49:07 GMT, "Dave C." > wrote:

>> 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
>
I think you're dealing with the wrong insurance company! :-)
Mine doesn't do that. It pays fair market value.

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

On 11 Mar 2005 10:01:09 -0800, wrote:

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car as
>when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.

On *collision*? No, it's definitely not.
If so, maybe it's time to look for another insurance company.
>
>
>> I wonder how many (what percentage) of insured drivers don't carry
>> collision/comprehensive? Probably a lot.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"

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

On 11 Mar 2005 12:07:29 -0800, "Larry Bud" >
wrote:

>> > Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
>> > lesser valus of the vehicle.
>>
>> Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car
>as
>> when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.
>
>It still costs the same amount of labor to fix the car whether it's new
>or 7 years old. Only the parts will change, and that cost is minimal
>compared to labor.

While that's true, it's only part of the equation.
As the value of the car drops, the amount the insurance company is
willng to spend on fixing the car drops, which obviously drops their
exposure, which *should* (and does, with most insurance companies)
reduse your premiums on your collision coverage.
IOW, if your car is worth, say, $20,000, they will spend up tot hat
much, before they will consider totalling it.
If, though, your car is worth, say, $2,000, that's all they will pay
out to fix it. If the damage is more than that, they will total it,
and give you the $2,000.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On 11 Mar 2005 12:16:53 -0800, wrote:

>
>Larry Bud wrote:
>> > > Of course, if collision is included, the cost does go down with a
>> > > lesser valus of the vehicle.
>> >
>> > Not in my case. I am stil paying the same rate on my 7 year old car
>> as
>> > when I bought it. AFAIK that is the case with all states/agencies.
>>
>> It still costs the same amount of labor to fix the car whether it's
>new
>> or 7 years old. Only the parts will change, and that cost is minimal
>> compared to labor.
>
>Not true. If my new $20,000 car gets hit they spend up to $20,000 to
>fix it, any more and it is totaled (I get $20,000). If my no longer new
>and now only worth $5000 car gets hit they spend up to $5000, any more
>and it is totaled (I get $5000). Yet I pay the same regardless.

I will suggest that you shop around. Unless there's something about
you (or your insurance/driving situation) that's abnormal, you should
be getting a lower rate on collision coverage as the value of the car
goes down.

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

On 11 Mar 2005 10:23:19 -0800, wrote:

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> 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?
>
>I think you are missing my point. On the first car I have full coverage
>(my car and other car are covered in accident -amounts don't matter). I
>don't think I should have to pay seperate liability on the POS car.
>That should be automatic with me having liability on the first car.
>What higher costs are there to the insurance agency when I drive my POS
>car? None. If anything they are off cheaper. There is less (zero) of a
>chance of me wrecking my new car when I am driving my old car. So if I
>do wreck, they are only out the amount of the car I hit, and not the
>amount of my new car.

And if you wreck your first car, and then drive the second car?

Other than that, obviously you can't drive both at the same time. Just
as obviously, you aren't driving one car exclusively, or you wouldn't
need to insure the second car at all.
While it would certainly be possible to come up with a rate schedule
that would only have one premium for those who have two driven cars,
it would still be as high.
>
>
>> >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.
>
>I have full coverage(collison, liability, uninsured motorist etc), I
>know this for a fact. In Texas using state farm my collision coverage
>never goes down. That is my whole gripe. If you don't mind me asking,
>where do you live and who insures you?

I live in Phoenix, AZ., and use USAA.
>
>
>> Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have?
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"

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

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:38:01 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:

>You _can_ get a policy with a "rider" that specifically excludes
>certain people (as when, for instance, you have a non-driving cousin
>with a DUI conviction staying at your house). But companies hate to
>write these because if he does drive and wrecks, the courts will
>sometimes make the company pay anyway.
>
>I blame the lawyers.

IMO, it's not just the lawyers, but also the people who figure, "Well,
this one time won't hurt." :-(

From the experience of a friend: If someone you know "borrows" your
car who is not only not listed on the policy application as a driver
of that car, but is not supposed to drive it at all (IOW, the car is
"stolen" in all but indictment), does drive the car and wrecks, the
insurance won't pay. If you want to get the insurance company to pay,
the insured party must sue the insurance company. But (again, from
what I've seen) the insured party must have reported the car stolen,
and done whatever steps need to be taken to get the perp indicted
(yers, I know the state does the indicting, but the insured needs to
press this). If that's not done, the insurance company can make the
defence that the insured gave tacit/implicit permission for the perp
to drive the car.
Here's a tip: if you allow your keys to be gotten by the perp, you're
going to have to go some to demonstrate that you even tried to prevent
anyone from driving the car. For example, if you come home and
automatically take your car keys and hang them on a hook by the front
door, and someone in the home takes the keys and drives, even though
you have forbidden them to, you could well be SOL.
In such a case, I imagine a good lawyer can be a very welcome friend!

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

Bernard farquart wrote:
> "John David Galt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Most forms of insurance, including auto coverage, are standardized
by
> > law (although there are variations between states, like most other
> > "uniform acts"). As the law stands, no one can write you a policy
> > that covers the car only when you are driving it.
> >
> This is not correct, at least in WA and OR. The insurance is
> called "Broad form" and it gives liability coverage to you in
> *any* vehicle. (it says "owned and non-owned" on my insurance card.)
>
> I have this insurance because I have four vehicles, and do not wish
> to pay for four insurance policies.
>
> There are only two insurance companies that sell it (in Wa, at least)
> Unitrin, and Cascade. Ask your agent if it is available to you in
your
> state.
>
> Bernard

Interesting. I need to find out if anyone in Texas will do the same. I
don't think so though.

Big Bill wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2005 10:23:19 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >Big Bill wrote:
> >> 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?
> >
> >I think you are missing my point. On the first car I have full
coverage
> >(my car and other car are covered in accident -amounts don't
matter). I
> >don't think I should have to pay seperate liability on the POS car.
> >That should be automatic with me having liability on the first car.
> >What higher costs are there to the insurance agency when I drive my
POS
> >car? None. If anything they are off cheaper. There is less (zero) of
a
> >chance of me wrecking my new car when I am driving my old car. So if
I
> >do wreck, they are only out the amount of the car I hit, and not the
> >amount of my new car.
>
> And if you wreck your first car, and then drive the second car?

How is that different than me wrecking my first car, and then buying
and driving a new car? Or me getting a rental car? I don't have to pay
2 insurance policies in either of those cases. Or if I drive my
neighbors car. Liablility should be on the person, and collision should
be on the car.



> Other than that, obviously you can't drive both at the same time.
Just
> as obviously, you aren't driving one car exclusively, or you wouldn't
> need to insure the second car at all.
> While it would certainly be possible to come up with a rate schedule
> that would only have one premium for those who have two driven cars,
> it would still be as high.

In no case can I drive both at the same time. So I am only driving one
car at a time exclusively, so there is no need for a second liability.
And in no case is the insurance company out any more money. Can you
give me an example of how the insurance agency would be out more?

What if I had a 100 cars. Are my odds of getting into a wreck any
higher than if I had 1? No. So there shouldn't be an increase in my
liability.

> >
> >> >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.
> >
> >I have full coverage(collison, liability, uninsured motorist etc), I
> >know this for a fact. In Texas using state farm my collision
coverage
> >never goes down. That is my whole gripe. If you don't mind me
asking,
> >where do you live and who insures you?
>
> I live in Phoenix, AZ., and use USAA.
> >
> >
> >> Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bill Funk
> >> Change "g" to "a"
>
> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"

wrote:
> Big Bill wrote:
> > On 11 Mar 2005 10:23:19 -0800, wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Big Bill wrote:
> > >> 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?
> > >
> > >I think you are missing my point. On the first car I have full
> coverage
> > >(my car and other car are covered in accident -amounts don't
> matter). I
> > >don't think I should have to pay seperate liability on the POS
car.
> > >That should be automatic with me having liability on the first
car.
> > >What higher costs are there to the insurance agency when I drive
my
> POS
> > >car? None. If anything they are off cheaper. There is less (zero)
of
> a
> > >chance of me wrecking my new car when I am driving my old car. So
if
> I
> > >do wreck, they are only out the amount of the car I hit, and not
the
> > >amount of my new car.
> >
> > And if you wreck your first car, and then drive the second car?
>
> How is that different than me wrecking my first car, and then buying
> and driving a new car? Or me getting a rental car?

You have to insure your new car before you can drive it.

> I don't have to pay
> 2 insurance policies in either of those cases.

Yes you do. Even if the rental car company insures the car, you are
paying for it (indirectly).

> Or if I drive my
> neighbors car.

Hopefully you neighbor insures his/her car.

> Liablility should be on the person, and collision should
> be on the car.

Why?

>
>
>
> > Other than that, obviously you can't drive both at the same time.
> Just
> > as obviously, you aren't driving one car exclusively, or you
wouldn't
> > need to insure the second car at all.
> > While it would certainly be possible to come up with a rate
schedule
> > that would only have one premium for those who have two driven
cars,
> > it would still be as high.
>
> In no case can I drive both at the same time. So I am only driving
one
> car at a time exclusively, so there is no need for a second
liability.
> And in no case is the insurance company out any more money. Can you
> give me an example of how the insurance agency would be out more?
>
> What if I had a 100 cars. Are my odds of getting into a wreck any
> higher than if I had 1?

Actually yes.

> No. So there shouldn't be an increase in my
> liability.
>
> > >
> > >> >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.
> > >
> > >I have full coverage(collison, liability, uninsured motorist etc),
I
> > >know this for a fact. In Texas using state farm my collision
> coverage
> > >never goes down. That is my whole gripe. If you don't mind me
> asking,
> > >where do you live and who insures you?
> >
> > I live in Phoenix, AZ., and use USAA.
> > >
> > >
> > >> Are you sure you know what insurance you actually have?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Bill Funk
> > >> Change "g" to "a"
> >
> > --
> > Bill Funk
> > Change "g" to "a"

> I think you're dealing with the wrong insurance company! :-)
> Mine doesn't do that. It pays fair market value.
>

Have you actually made a claim? That "fair market value" is probably less
than the contents of your wallet at the moment. You'd be shocked and
dismayed if you saw how they figure it. It has NO RELATION AT ALL to what a
used-car dealer would have sold your car for, assuming that it was still in
good shape. In fact, from fair market value, you can't even SEE retail
price with a 20 foot long telescope. -Dave