RKunz2,
You know RKunz2, the more you comment-the more you sound like the Democratic/Green Party poster boy that you are! You, a Republican?! Ha! I was born at night-but not last night. You, who thinks the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR), is such a great organization (in reality it's just another arm of the Democratic/Green party)! For those who don't know, the FTCR was founded by Ralph Nader poster boy Harvey Rosenfield. This is just another self-anointed control organization (like the Democratic/Green party). This group of idiots believes the American people are too stupid to think for themselves, so they have appointed themselves "watchdogs for the consumer." The FTCR is very anti-business. These cats won't stop until they have 100% Government regulation on all business (and not just insurance). RKunz2-would have us believing in such stupidity-but I guess he did not count on people (reading the Journal), having common sense-who think (i.e. those who see the end results of things), rather than react because it feels good for the moment (and to satisfy their own belly aching).
Now back to RKunz2:
Fact: RKunz2, has no sense of self-accountability
Fact: If RKunz2 had read his policy-he would have known what he was covered for (and not
Complained when he had a claim). It does not take a rocket scientist to understand a
Declaration page on a insurance policy (then again RKunz2 is a product of outward based
Education).
Fact: RKunz2 (like all members of RTCR), has selected memory when it comes to a claim.
Fact: RKunz2 you "tooted you horn," about regulation-then complain like the baby you are,
Because your insurance company cut out a coverage (so they could try and be competitive)-but your too stupid to read your own policy (see fact #2).
Fact: Its idiots like you RKunz2, Tort Lawyers, & Insurance Fraud (yes you do need to be
Lumped in this group of slime), who have FORCED insurance companies to cut out coverage/pull out of markets.
RKunz2, why don't you do all of us a favor in insurance (since it is such a bad product), and drop ALL your insurance. Why don't you just insure yourself! Then you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt what you're covered for! Then maybe you can have laws passed (with the help of your buddies at FTCR), regulating yourself (like putting a cork in that useless hole below your nose).
Agent007 (Defender of Big Insurance)
Homeowners Insurance-california Market
Moderators: Josh, independent guy
Dear Agent007:
You're fun! I like you. Not to be too critical, but you need some new clichés. You were "born at night, but not last night." Agent007, you desperately need some new material.
You know, people ARE generally smart enough to figure things out for themselves, you're absolutely right. BUT, the general public at large really couldn't find their way out of a dark tunnel with a flash light and GPS. Now, I suppose you'll want examples, OK. President Bill Clinton, Gov. Gray Davis (re-elect), Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustemonte, Commissioner Garamendi, Senator Diane Finstein, and Senator Barbara Boxer. Wow, I could go on all day, but won't. I think that's enough said on that topic.
My policy.....you know, I read my policy. I read it when we obtained coverage and again before reporting the claim. Do you know what my policy stated about this incident? It stated that even if the initial cause of the damage were excluded under section XX of the policy, the resulting physical damage and loss would be covered. You should know that section, right? Com'on hotshot, impress me! You should know the term "contravening policy language"?, right? Would it surprise you that AAA has been disciplined for that action by the CDI? "Things that make you go, hmmmm?"
You know, the interesting part is now they're reconsidering their position because "their" contractor that made the faulty construction/installation determination wasn't properly licensed to make that determination in the first place. Shoddy claims investigation practices, no? Now, they're asking for a re-evaluation by a properly licensed contractor, so they can review the claim. Oooops!
In simpler terms, would you take your automobile to a chiropractor, if there were a drivability problem? If you answer 'yes' to that question, then you're more seriously disturbed than I originally thought.
And by the way Agent007, I'm not "tooting my horn" about anything. I generally pride myself on being a couple steps ahead of everything, but feel like I was really out-to-lunch on this one. This isn't about "tooting my horn", or getting sympathy because it's not wanted. I want consumers to be more educated about their policies and make smart moves that make sense in situations like this.
You're definitely, as I suspected, an insurance company puppet. You were bought and paid for a long time ago. I have just one question for you, at what point in your surely distinguished career did you sell out? You know, they say, "Never bite the hand that feeds you", but Jesus man!
Interestingly, just this morning I heard yet another "opinion" about AAA and their Homeowners market. I can't really recant the exact statements, due to the number of explanatives included, but basically she stated that AAA is among the worst in Homeowners, best in Auto, but forget about Homeowners. The individual that made this statement is in a profession that she sees, and deals with a number of carriers on a number of different levels, so that was certainly interesting. Even the CDI agrees with her statement (AAA ranked 39th worst out of 50 P&C carriers, according to the 2002 Complaint Study). You see Agent007, I'm not a fluke here. Obviously, I'm not just a horn blower, or I would be largely alone in my assessment.
One last thing, before slamming someone's character, demeanor, intelligence, and integrity, please double-check your grammar and syntax. I would think its embarrassing for a person of your intelligence and outstanding success to write like a 3rd grade child just learning the language.
Anyway, you just keep the faith and continue to be the "Defender of Big Insurance". I truly cherish opinions on both sides of the fence because it's the different strokes that make life interesting, don't you agree?
You're fun! I like you. Not to be too critical, but you need some new clichés. You were "born at night, but not last night." Agent007, you desperately need some new material.
You know, people ARE generally smart enough to figure things out for themselves, you're absolutely right. BUT, the general public at large really couldn't find their way out of a dark tunnel with a flash light and GPS. Now, I suppose you'll want examples, OK. President Bill Clinton, Gov. Gray Davis (re-elect), Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustemonte, Commissioner Garamendi, Senator Diane Finstein, and Senator Barbara Boxer. Wow, I could go on all day, but won't. I think that's enough said on that topic.
My policy.....you know, I read my policy. I read it when we obtained coverage and again before reporting the claim. Do you know what my policy stated about this incident? It stated that even if the initial cause of the damage were excluded under section XX of the policy, the resulting physical damage and loss would be covered. You should know that section, right? Com'on hotshot, impress me! You should know the term "contravening policy language"?, right? Would it surprise you that AAA has been disciplined for that action by the CDI? "Things that make you go, hmmmm?"
You know, the interesting part is now they're reconsidering their position because "their" contractor that made the faulty construction/installation determination wasn't properly licensed to make that determination in the first place. Shoddy claims investigation practices, no? Now, they're asking for a re-evaluation by a properly licensed contractor, so they can review the claim. Oooops!
In simpler terms, would you take your automobile to a chiropractor, if there were a drivability problem? If you answer 'yes' to that question, then you're more seriously disturbed than I originally thought.
And by the way Agent007, I'm not "tooting my horn" about anything. I generally pride myself on being a couple steps ahead of everything, but feel like I was really out-to-lunch on this one. This isn't about "tooting my horn", or getting sympathy because it's not wanted. I want consumers to be more educated about their policies and make smart moves that make sense in situations like this.
You're definitely, as I suspected, an insurance company puppet. You were bought and paid for a long time ago. I have just one question for you, at what point in your surely distinguished career did you sell out? You know, they say, "Never bite the hand that feeds you", but Jesus man!
Interestingly, just this morning I heard yet another "opinion" about AAA and their Homeowners market. I can't really recant the exact statements, due to the number of explanatives included, but basically she stated that AAA is among the worst in Homeowners, best in Auto, but forget about Homeowners. The individual that made this statement is in a profession that she sees, and deals with a number of carriers on a number of different levels, so that was certainly interesting. Even the CDI agrees with her statement (AAA ranked 39th worst out of 50 P&C carriers, according to the 2002 Complaint Study). You see Agent007, I'm not a fluke here. Obviously, I'm not just a horn blower, or I would be largely alone in my assessment.
One last thing, before slamming someone's character, demeanor, intelligence, and integrity, please double-check your grammar and syntax. I would think its embarrassing for a person of your intelligence and outstanding success to write like a 3rd grade child just learning the language.
Anyway, you just keep the faith and continue to be the "Defender of Big Insurance". I truly cherish opinions on both sides of the fence because it's the different strokes that make life interesting, don't you agree?
RKunz,
Would you mind answering two questions?
1. What was the nature of your claim? Would you mind describing it for us?
2. If insurance companies operated on the razor slim margin you think we should be what do you think would be happening to the people in Southern California in the next several weeks. My guess would be something like, "Sorry, I know your house burnt to the ground and you have no place to live but we ran out of money a couple of days ago. We can't pay your claim."
I look forward to your response.
Would you mind answering two questions?
1. What was the nature of your claim? Would you mind describing it for us?
2. If insurance companies operated on the razor slim margin you think we should be what do you think would be happening to the people in Southern California in the next several weeks. My guess would be something like, "Sorry, I know your house burnt to the ground and you have no place to live but we ran out of money a couple of days ago. We can't pay your claim."
I look forward to your response.
Dear Lisa:
My pleasure to answer your questions.
The nature of this claim really had 3 separate components; physical structure damage, resulting in the sudden and accidental overflow of a drain line, mold abatement (minor), and additional living expense. The cause was an A/C condensation line that unbenounced to us had clogged and with heavy summer usage, overflowed. From what I understand in talking with several A/C contractors and homeowners, this occurrence is not that uncommon, but admittedly I had no idea. Since we maintenance our filters and central furnace systems (2 of them) regularly, the damage was not that extensive. When the water penetrated an interior wall, wetting the carpet in a room that's used daily by my son, that's when the problem became apparent. I immediately stripped the room, pulled carpet back and removed saturated pad in an attempt to stop any further loss or damage. It happened on a holiday weekend, so we were unable to get anyone in to investigate further for 48 hours.
Let me make something clear, insurance carriers do not in anyway shape or form operate on razor slim margins, they are not allowed by individual state laws of solvency.
As a businessman, I'm also not saying they should strip down to nothing and work on a skeleton basis; however, claims practices come into play more often than they should, and you cannot show me a carrier out there that has an absolutely clean record of claim practices.
A huge portion of the reason I'm so motivated on this issue is the treatment that I received from the carrier. I was treated (from the word "go") like a common criminal and you know what, I'm their insured! What really scares me is I'm not convinced that if my house had burned down to the foundation that AAA wouldn't deny that claim too for some asinine reason. I understand that they lost 80 homes and 119 autos in these fires. I'm sure that will mean 80 denial letters, but they'll cover the loss on the autos. They'll probably cite something like homeowner negligence for improper fire abatement perimeters or some BS like that to avoid payment of the loss. It's utterly ridiculous! Of course, I seriously doubt that anyone will go up to one of those people and accuse them of having a lack of self-accountability problem.
You want to know the unembellished truth, I was told straight out by a CDI Compliance Officer that AAA is "very proud of their decisions concerning liability and even if a mistake was made, it's doubtful they would step up and reconsider." What does that attitude tell you? Believe me, I'm all for stringent claims handling and thorough investigation practices, but you have to trust me that the standards on this case were a substantially sub-par effort on their part. I even have breach on some codes and laws concerning Fair Claims Settlement Practices, but was told by 2 attorneys that it really doesn't make any difference because the insurance companies really don't pay attention to those laws anyway. What??? Who's running the show here, when there are no regulatory compliance efforts?
Perhaps I was mistaken in my decision to seek coverage, at least on the Homeowners side, with AAA. I guess I was looking for a Cadillac, or at least, a Buick, and got a Hyundai instead. Pretty sad when you consider their financial stability and size ratings. I guess that doesn't have anything to do with their practices in dealing with their insureds. Lesson learned!
My pleasure to answer your questions.
The nature of this claim really had 3 separate components; physical structure damage, resulting in the sudden and accidental overflow of a drain line, mold abatement (minor), and additional living expense. The cause was an A/C condensation line that unbenounced to us had clogged and with heavy summer usage, overflowed. From what I understand in talking with several A/C contractors and homeowners, this occurrence is not that uncommon, but admittedly I had no idea. Since we maintenance our filters and central furnace systems (2 of them) regularly, the damage was not that extensive. When the water penetrated an interior wall, wetting the carpet in a room that's used daily by my son, that's when the problem became apparent. I immediately stripped the room, pulled carpet back and removed saturated pad in an attempt to stop any further loss or damage. It happened on a holiday weekend, so we were unable to get anyone in to investigate further for 48 hours.
Let me make something clear, insurance carriers do not in anyway shape or form operate on razor slim margins, they are not allowed by individual state laws of solvency.
As a businessman, I'm also not saying they should strip down to nothing and work on a skeleton basis; however, claims practices come into play more often than they should, and you cannot show me a carrier out there that has an absolutely clean record of claim practices.
A huge portion of the reason I'm so motivated on this issue is the treatment that I received from the carrier. I was treated (from the word "go") like a common criminal and you know what, I'm their insured! What really scares me is I'm not convinced that if my house had burned down to the foundation that AAA wouldn't deny that claim too for some asinine reason. I understand that they lost 80 homes and 119 autos in these fires. I'm sure that will mean 80 denial letters, but they'll cover the loss on the autos. They'll probably cite something like homeowner negligence for improper fire abatement perimeters or some BS like that to avoid payment of the loss. It's utterly ridiculous! Of course, I seriously doubt that anyone will go up to one of those people and accuse them of having a lack of self-accountability problem.
You want to know the unembellished truth, I was told straight out by a CDI Compliance Officer that AAA is "very proud of their decisions concerning liability and even if a mistake was made, it's doubtful they would step up and reconsider." What does that attitude tell you? Believe me, I'm all for stringent claims handling and thorough investigation practices, but you have to trust me that the standards on this case were a substantially sub-par effort on their part. I even have breach on some codes and laws concerning Fair Claims Settlement Practices, but was told by 2 attorneys that it really doesn't make any difference because the insurance companies really don't pay attention to those laws anyway. What??? Who's running the show here, when there are no regulatory compliance efforts?
Perhaps I was mistaken in my decision to seek coverage, at least on the Homeowners side, with AAA. I guess I was looking for a Cadillac, or at least, a Buick, and got a Hyundai instead. Pretty sad when you consider their financial stability and size ratings. I guess that doesn't have anything to do with their practices in dealing with their insureds. Lesson learned!
Food For Thought for Everyone - You make your own determination...
FOR RELEASE: MEDIA CALLS ONLY
May 19, 2003 (#057) (916) 492-3566
(Updated August 20, 2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMEOWNER INSURANCE ISSUES
CLUE "" COMPREHENSIVE LOSS UNDERWRITING EXCHANGE
CDI experienced a four-fold increase in formal complaints from consumers regarding homeowner insurance issues, in particular non-renewal of coverage.
In all of 2001, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) received 318 formal complaints regarding homeowner insurance. In contrast, by the third quarter of 2002, we had received more than 1,200 written complaints from consumers, making it the top complaint to the hotline.
As of March 2003, formal complaints regarding homeowner non-renewal and CLUE database are pacing at the same rate they did in late 2002, exceeding 100 per month.
CDI is sponsoring legislation to regulate insurers' use of the CLUE database, including AB 81, authored by Wyland (D) Escondido.
CDI enacted "emergency regulations" on July 21, 2003 detailing how CDI will enforce existing statutes that govern the use of the CLUE and
A-Plus databases.
Choicepoint, the company that owns and manages the CLUE database is quick to compare CLUE to a credit report. Consumers are at a serious information disadvantage because they do not know the database exists, may not be told by insurers that their denial of coverage is due to a CLUE report, and do not know how to obtain a copy of their report to review it and dispute errors.
Another issue involves the reliability of the information in the database. CDI has a number of cases where consumers were unfairly denied a renewal or new policy based on inaccurate CLUE data.
o For example: A homeowner in San Francisco was denied coverage from Nationwide Insurance due to CLUE data that reported a "water claim" she filed while insured by State Farm. The consumer NEVER filed a water claim, but rather called her agent to see if a clogged pipe would be covered by her policy. The information was entered by State Farm into the CLUE database as a claim. There was no claim and no loss in this case. The consumer was unaware that this information existed. It was not until CDI intervened on her behalf that State Farm corrected the record.
o Another case, cited in a recent hearing, involved a first-time homebuyer who was denied coverage due to a "water damage claim" at his previous address. The problem was that this consumer did not own the home where the damage had occurred. It was his brother's home and he merely stayed with him for a period of time. But because he listed it as his last address, it popped up on the CLUE database and the previous activity wrongfully affected his ability to obtain insurance.
CREDIT SCORING
CDI is opposed to the use of credit scoring in underwriting homeowner's insurance. Concern centers on the issue of credit scoring potentially being discriminatory and unfair to specific populations.
CDI supports Senator Martha Escutia's bill to ban the use of credit scoring in underwriting, SB 691.
Senator Jackie Speier also has SB 64 pending, which regulates the use of CLUE and credit scoring.
HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS
The CDI Web site at http://www.insurance.ca.gov
The CDI Consumer Hotline at (800) 927-HELP (4357)
FOR RELEASE: MEDIA CALLS ONLY
May 19, 2003 (#057) (916) 492-3566
(Updated August 20, 2003)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMEOWNER INSURANCE ISSUES
CLUE "" COMPREHENSIVE LOSS UNDERWRITING EXCHANGE
CDI experienced a four-fold increase in formal complaints from consumers regarding homeowner insurance issues, in particular non-renewal of coverage.
In all of 2001, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) received 318 formal complaints regarding homeowner insurance. In contrast, by the third quarter of 2002, we had received more than 1,200 written complaints from consumers, making it the top complaint to the hotline.
As of March 2003, formal complaints regarding homeowner non-renewal and CLUE database are pacing at the same rate they did in late 2002, exceeding 100 per month.
CDI is sponsoring legislation to regulate insurers' use of the CLUE database, including AB 81, authored by Wyland (D) Escondido.
CDI enacted "emergency regulations" on July 21, 2003 detailing how CDI will enforce existing statutes that govern the use of the CLUE and
A-Plus databases.
Choicepoint, the company that owns and manages the CLUE database is quick to compare CLUE to a credit report. Consumers are at a serious information disadvantage because they do not know the database exists, may not be told by insurers that their denial of coverage is due to a CLUE report, and do not know how to obtain a copy of their report to review it and dispute errors.
Another issue involves the reliability of the information in the database. CDI has a number of cases where consumers were unfairly denied a renewal or new policy based on inaccurate CLUE data.
o For example: A homeowner in San Francisco was denied coverage from Nationwide Insurance due to CLUE data that reported a "water claim" she filed while insured by State Farm. The consumer NEVER filed a water claim, but rather called her agent to see if a clogged pipe would be covered by her policy. The information was entered by State Farm into the CLUE database as a claim. There was no claim and no loss in this case. The consumer was unaware that this information existed. It was not until CDI intervened on her behalf that State Farm corrected the record.
o Another case, cited in a recent hearing, involved a first-time homebuyer who was denied coverage due to a "water damage claim" at his previous address. The problem was that this consumer did not own the home where the damage had occurred. It was his brother's home and he merely stayed with him for a period of time. But because he listed it as his last address, it popped up on the CLUE database and the previous activity wrongfully affected his ability to obtain insurance.
CREDIT SCORING
CDI is opposed to the use of credit scoring in underwriting homeowner's insurance. Concern centers on the issue of credit scoring potentially being discriminatory and unfair to specific populations.
CDI supports Senator Martha Escutia's bill to ban the use of credit scoring in underwriting, SB 691.
Senator Jackie Speier also has SB 64 pending, which regulates the use of CLUE and credit scoring.
HELP FOR HOMEOWNERS
The CDI Web site at http://www.insurance.ca.gov
The CDI Consumer Hotline at (800) 927-HELP (4357)
Rkunz2
I was only communicating in a language you could understand (someone as brain-dead as you could not possibly understand words beyond two syllables). You know, the more e-mails you send out the more self-righteous you become. You just can't admit your wrong-on anything! I'm sure in any (hopefully, we've heard the last from your pie-hole) future e-mails you might even try to convince us you built your own home (you who knows ever detail of maintenance on you home).
Jeff, Lisa, Wombadillo, & I have all tried to show you the errors (the stupidity) of your ways. But you, Mr Perfect, have done everything right! You have known every detail of your insurance contract. You are completely blameless on your claim. Oh, poor pitifully you! For shame! For shame! The big evil insurance company. How dare they deny your claim! May they rot in regulation hell! You, who has been sent from on high-to defend the poor consumer, from the bulling of big insurance! You have become the savior of those who have lost the meaning of self-accountability. Let us come and worship at your feet, oh ignorant one. Lead us to more regulation-surely this will reduce our rates! Lead us to more Department of Insurance control-surely this will lead us to more coverage! Lead on oh stupid one. We too want to say; "we are victims of big insurance-woe is me!"?
Agent007
P.S. I've noticed its not the CDI handing out those claim checks in California to people who've lost their homes in the fire. Must be some sort of charity organization (surely it can't be big insurance-they need more regulation).
I was only communicating in a language you could understand (someone as brain-dead as you could not possibly understand words beyond two syllables). You know, the more e-mails you send out the more self-righteous you become. You just can't admit your wrong-on anything! I'm sure in any (hopefully, we've heard the last from your pie-hole) future e-mails you might even try to convince us you built your own home (you who knows ever detail of maintenance on you home).
Jeff, Lisa, Wombadillo, & I have all tried to show you the errors (the stupidity) of your ways. But you, Mr Perfect, have done everything right! You have known every detail of your insurance contract. You are completely blameless on your claim. Oh, poor pitifully you! For shame! For shame! The big evil insurance company. How dare they deny your claim! May they rot in regulation hell! You, who has been sent from on high-to defend the poor consumer, from the bulling of big insurance! You have become the savior of those who have lost the meaning of self-accountability. Let us come and worship at your feet, oh ignorant one. Lead us to more regulation-surely this will reduce our rates! Lead us to more Department of Insurance control-surely this will lead us to more coverage! Lead on oh stupid one. We too want to say; "we are victims of big insurance-woe is me!"?
Agent007
P.S. I've noticed its not the CDI handing out those claim checks in California to people who've lost their homes in the fire. Must be some sort of charity organization (surely it can't be big insurance-they need more regulation).
Dear Agent007:
Thank you for your poignant rhetoric, you have once again provided me with boundless amounts of entertainment, with your words of wisdom!
Lest ye fail to see that apparently you are the one that finds it troublesome to speak in words of more than two syllables, at least in a coherent manner.
Perhaps you should take to heart the first commandment of the English language, "Thou shalt not bludgeon the Queen's English!"?
However, I must concede Agent007; stupid, ignorant, shameful, and"¦"¦.oh yea, self-righteous. Perhaps, I must admit.
Stupid for thinking I was getting something in exchange for something, when in-fact, I was getting nothing in exchange for earnest money paid. Ignorant for accepting a contract, conceived by attorneys, written by the aforementioned attorneys; and therefore, containing grandiose loopholes, whereby attorneys could capitalize efforts in their favor. Definitely not the brightest moment in my life.
You're right; all of America should wake-up and smell coffee! Insurance guarantees nothing, other than the specific right to pay for something that may or may NOT be there when you need it. The undeniable fact that insured's have no rights when policy disputes arise, and that we are all completely stupid for thinking that we had any rights in the first place. You're also right on the regulation issue; why should we rally for any additional regulation (further wasting the taxpayers money), when the current regulations in place today are blatantly and in most arrogant fashion, largely ignored by the carriers?
God Bless your kind sole, Agent007 for showing me the light and the errors of my ways. I don't know what the heck I was thinking?
I suppose I should go now, you must surely be a busy person. Oh wait"¦.what's that I hear? I think I hear the sound of more sheep that need shearing. You better get on it!
Thank you for your poignant rhetoric, you have once again provided me with boundless amounts of entertainment, with your words of wisdom!
Lest ye fail to see that apparently you are the one that finds it troublesome to speak in words of more than two syllables, at least in a coherent manner.
Perhaps you should take to heart the first commandment of the English language, "Thou shalt not bludgeon the Queen's English!"?
However, I must concede Agent007; stupid, ignorant, shameful, and"¦"¦.oh yea, self-righteous. Perhaps, I must admit.
Stupid for thinking I was getting something in exchange for something, when in-fact, I was getting nothing in exchange for earnest money paid. Ignorant for accepting a contract, conceived by attorneys, written by the aforementioned attorneys; and therefore, containing grandiose loopholes, whereby attorneys could capitalize efforts in their favor. Definitely not the brightest moment in my life.
You're right; all of America should wake-up and smell coffee! Insurance guarantees nothing, other than the specific right to pay for something that may or may NOT be there when you need it. The undeniable fact that insured's have no rights when policy disputes arise, and that we are all completely stupid for thinking that we had any rights in the first place. You're also right on the regulation issue; why should we rally for any additional regulation (further wasting the taxpayers money), when the current regulations in place today are blatantly and in most arrogant fashion, largely ignored by the carriers?
God Bless your kind sole, Agent007 for showing me the light and the errors of my ways. I don't know what the heck I was thinking?
I suppose I should go now, you must surely be a busy person. Oh wait"¦.what's that I hear? I think I hear the sound of more sheep that need shearing. You better get on it!
TO EVERYONE READING IN THIS FORUM:
Thank you all for those that have participated in the discussions on this topic.
Believe it or not, I appreciate the opinion of all here (especially our beloved Agent007).
I will still advocate to all of us "simple people" out here in the world, please be careful when you sign-up for anything. Insurance policies are not a joke, they are one of the more important risk assessment decisions in your life, so when you're sitting down with your agent, ready to sign that contract, don't say, "I don't have time to read this document." Don't feel pressured by your agent or representative either.
You have the right to review everything, or have it reviewed by a qualified professional to make sure its what you need and/or asked for in the first place. Be mindful of binding coverage because your carrier may be entitled to a Minimum Earned Premium, even if you find better or less expensive coverage tomorrow, and cancel out of the original policy contract. Are you making payments, or paying for the policy in full? If you're making payments, guess what folks? Your policy is being financed. Maybe, through the carrier (company plan) that you're placing coverage with, or maybe with a third-party bank (premium finance company). Be sure that you understand the ramifications of a financed policy, and that your agent properly discloses that information to you in accordance with applicable state laws.
Ask questions, your agent is paid to represent you and your interests. If you ever get that feeling like the wool is being pulled down over your eyes, trust your instincts because you're probably right.
I also wish to acknowledge the efforts of the agents. Like my industry and every industry out there today, there are good ones, and bad ones. A good agent will take whatever time is necessary to explain everything you need or want to know, and represent you in a honest fashion. They won't be intimidated by questions, or a request to have documents reviewed, if you don't completely understand everything you should. In most cases, they can be an invaluable source of information for you. For those good agents out there, you as the insured need to know that they don't always receive sufficient compensation for their efforts and time. It's truly done out of service to their customer.
Take care everyone!
Thank you all for those that have participated in the discussions on this topic.
Believe it or not, I appreciate the opinion of all here (especially our beloved Agent007).
I will still advocate to all of us "simple people" out here in the world, please be careful when you sign-up for anything. Insurance policies are not a joke, they are one of the more important risk assessment decisions in your life, so when you're sitting down with your agent, ready to sign that contract, don't say, "I don't have time to read this document." Don't feel pressured by your agent or representative either.
You have the right to review everything, or have it reviewed by a qualified professional to make sure its what you need and/or asked for in the first place. Be mindful of binding coverage because your carrier may be entitled to a Minimum Earned Premium, even if you find better or less expensive coverage tomorrow, and cancel out of the original policy contract. Are you making payments, or paying for the policy in full? If you're making payments, guess what folks? Your policy is being financed. Maybe, through the carrier (company plan) that you're placing coverage with, or maybe with a third-party bank (premium finance company). Be sure that you understand the ramifications of a financed policy, and that your agent properly discloses that information to you in accordance with applicable state laws.
Ask questions, your agent is paid to represent you and your interests. If you ever get that feeling like the wool is being pulled down over your eyes, trust your instincts because you're probably right.
I also wish to acknowledge the efforts of the agents. Like my industry and every industry out there today, there are good ones, and bad ones. A good agent will take whatever time is necessary to explain everything you need or want to know, and represent you in a honest fashion. They won't be intimidated by questions, or a request to have documents reviewed, if you don't completely understand everything you should. In most cases, they can be an invaluable source of information for you. For those good agents out there, you as the insured need to know that they don't always receive sufficient compensation for their efforts and time. It's truly done out of service to their customer.
Take care everyone!
-
MPAGE66666
- Insurance Journal Fan
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 1:43 pm
Agent007 does not represent our insurance industry very well in the discussion with RKunz2. He/she belittles and offends the customer without even collecting the basic facts of the occurrence or coverage data before expressing an opinion. The first and greatest sin in claims management is failure to develop the relevant facts. You cannot make a cogent logical conclusion without these facts.
RKunz2's claim may well have been improperly denied. RKunz2 is not without fault. If you pay a premium to a company that you have not researched and made a thoughtful considered choice about who you will place your financial protection with, you should not be surprised when you have a fight on your hands, I laud you though for fighting for what you believe in. Agent007 stick to the point.
I am proud to say that before retirement not a few years ago, I worked for a company that took the approach of "how can we provide coverage for the loss that occurred", not how can we deny it. The premiums were always a little higher than other companies, the underwriters more selective, but you can't get a Rolex at K-Mart. Don't get me wrong, we denied some claims too, but only after a thorough investigation, a policy review, and claim examination by multiple levels up to senior management. When we did deny a claim we made sure that there was a clear understanding of why it was denied, and in most circumstances, concurrence by the policyholder was achieved.
H. Martin Page
Risk Manager
RKunz2's claim may well have been improperly denied. RKunz2 is not without fault. If you pay a premium to a company that you have not researched and made a thoughtful considered choice about who you will place your financial protection with, you should not be surprised when you have a fight on your hands, I laud you though for fighting for what you believe in. Agent007 stick to the point.
I am proud to say that before retirement not a few years ago, I worked for a company that took the approach of "how can we provide coverage for the loss that occurred", not how can we deny it. The premiums were always a little higher than other companies, the underwriters more selective, but you can't get a Rolex at K-Mart. Don't get me wrong, we denied some claims too, but only after a thorough investigation, a policy review, and claim examination by multiple levels up to senior management. When we did deny a claim we made sure that there was a clear understanding of why it was denied, and in most circumstances, concurrence by the policyholder was achieved.
H. Martin Page
Risk Manager
Dear Mr. Page:
Point well made. Actually, I'm one of those people (in life, not just insurance) that would consider "paying a little more", within reason, for better service.
Funny thing, I thought I did research AAA, but apparently I didn't do the right research. I checked their financial strength and size ratings with A.M. Best and determined them to be a strong company. I never thought to check their Complaint Ratio, or difference between lines (auto, homeowner's). As I've learned almost unanimously across the board, AAA is great for their auto, but they're absolutely horrid on their homeowner's side. Lesson learned; although, they will lose all of my business, and that of anyone I ever talk to in the future. I realize my nickel is meaningless to them, but I also talk to thousands of people each year, some in seminar training courses. I love opportunities like this one to show people what NOT to do in servicing their customers.
Ironic on the K-Mart/Rolex analogy, my policies are actually "preferred" with my carrier. I don't fall under any assigned risk or pool programs. Generally speaking, based on loss history, I'm not a risk. Unfortunate for me, I will be in the future because of this claim. I'm sure I'll pay big for this one!
In my business, I saw 50%-300% annualized increases of premium rate (with no losses) when this hard market cycle hit. Now, with this claim on the personal side, I suppose I should expect an increase of 600%-800%?
Thanks for your consideration.
Point well made. Actually, I'm one of those people (in life, not just insurance) that would consider "paying a little more", within reason, for better service.
Funny thing, I thought I did research AAA, but apparently I didn't do the right research. I checked their financial strength and size ratings with A.M. Best and determined them to be a strong company. I never thought to check their Complaint Ratio, or difference between lines (auto, homeowner's). As I've learned almost unanimously across the board, AAA is great for their auto, but they're absolutely horrid on their homeowner's side. Lesson learned; although, they will lose all of my business, and that of anyone I ever talk to in the future. I realize my nickel is meaningless to them, but I also talk to thousands of people each year, some in seminar training courses. I love opportunities like this one to show people what NOT to do in servicing their customers.
Ironic on the K-Mart/Rolex analogy, my policies are actually "preferred" with my carrier. I don't fall under any assigned risk or pool programs. Generally speaking, based on loss history, I'm not a risk. Unfortunate for me, I will be in the future because of this claim. I'm sure I'll pay big for this one!
In my business, I saw 50%-300% annualized increases of premium rate (with no losses) when this hard market cycle hit. Now, with this claim on the personal side, I suppose I should expect an increase of 600%-800%?
Thanks for your consideration.
H. Martin Page
EX-Risk Manager
Martin, I may or may not "represent our insurance industry very well," but you (who is retired), does NOT represent our insurance industry at all! I guess you give a half-wit opinion of someone WHO USED TO BE IN THE INDUSTRY. But, as of to date-you don't have a clue about today's hostile insurance market. Have you not read RKunZ2's original statement (maybe you have become brain-dead since retiring)?
Since you are obviously too lazy to go back that far, here is an excerpt:
"As a recent victum of denied coverage for a viable water damage claim with AAA (Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club), and after hearing many similar stories about State Farm, Farmers, Alliance, etc., I'd like to encourage average consumers to fight for their rights."
Note: RKunZ2-love the way you spelled victim & the way you ran inter insurance together, oh great master of the English Language that you are.
Martin, if you had pulled your head out of you know where the last three years-you would know; full water coverage is a thing of the past (with some companies offering limited water coverage). Why do you think this is? Let me clue you in. There was a judge in Texas who awarded a $36 million dollar judgment-because he decided since a policy had water coverage in it-than black mold was covered (I won't rehash the details-because most people in the journal are family with the mold myth) too. Than; hocus pocus mold "victims," started springing up overnight! Result: instant hostile market (just add tort lawyers, and RKunZ2 "victim" types).
RKunZ2 is not just upset about being denied a claim; he is hostile against the whole insurance industry. Don't believe me; check this out (also from RKunZ2's original remarks in the Journal):
"Too many carriers are getting away with rubber stamp denial of benefits, shoddy claims practices, and shotgun claims administration, and people are not standing up against these carriers. As a result, the carriers have an over-developed "God complex" when making liability decisions against their insureds."?
This idiot won't stop until he has 100% Government Regulation of Insurance. His kind is an enemy of anyone who makes a living in insurance. Now, you big dummy-who has missed the point?
Agent007
P.S. On second thought; are you sure your not RKunZ2's cousin, brother or something (pretending to be retired in insurance)-giving RKunZ2 backup?
EX-Risk Manager
Martin, I may or may not "represent our insurance industry very well," but you (who is retired), does NOT represent our insurance industry at all! I guess you give a half-wit opinion of someone WHO USED TO BE IN THE INDUSTRY. But, as of to date-you don't have a clue about today's hostile insurance market. Have you not read RKunZ2's original statement (maybe you have become brain-dead since retiring)?
Since you are obviously too lazy to go back that far, here is an excerpt:
"As a recent victum of denied coverage for a viable water damage claim with AAA (Interinsurance Exchange of the Auto Club), and after hearing many similar stories about State Farm, Farmers, Alliance, etc., I'd like to encourage average consumers to fight for their rights."
Note: RKunZ2-love the way you spelled victim & the way you ran inter insurance together, oh great master of the English Language that you are.
Martin, if you had pulled your head out of you know where the last three years-you would know; full water coverage is a thing of the past (with some companies offering limited water coverage). Why do you think this is? Let me clue you in. There was a judge in Texas who awarded a $36 million dollar judgment-because he decided since a policy had water coverage in it-than black mold was covered (I won't rehash the details-because most people in the journal are family with the mold myth) too. Than; hocus pocus mold "victims," started springing up overnight! Result: instant hostile market (just add tort lawyers, and RKunZ2 "victim" types).
RKunZ2 is not just upset about being denied a claim; he is hostile against the whole insurance industry. Don't believe me; check this out (also from RKunZ2's original remarks in the Journal):
"Too many carriers are getting away with rubber stamp denial of benefits, shoddy claims practices, and shotgun claims administration, and people are not standing up against these carriers. As a result, the carriers have an over-developed "God complex" when making liability decisions against their insureds."?
This idiot won't stop until he has 100% Government Regulation of Insurance. His kind is an enemy of anyone who makes a living in insurance. Now, you big dummy-who has missed the point?
Agent007
P.S. On second thought; are you sure your not RKunZ2's cousin, brother or something (pretending to be retired in insurance)-giving RKunZ2 backup?
Agent007:
Hmmm, sub-par effort on your part, kind of boring too.
Thank you for pointing out that I'm a fallible human being. You're right; I did misspell "victim" and now its fixed. Me, a Master of the English language, you say? No, not even close; however, a much higher rate of literacy concerning the aforementioned, I think? Don't you?
What else"¦"¦.oh yes, Agent007, when is the last time you looked up AAA on A.M. Best or CDI? Better yet, when was the last time you looked at a piece of letterhead from the carrier? Never, I suspect, or you would not have made such an ignorant remark about "running inter insurance together." Dummy, their legal name is;
00186 P Interinsurance Exchange of Auto Club United States: California (A.M. Best)
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB CA 15598 1318 Legal Name (CDI)
Formerly known as; "INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA"?
Oh boy, Agent007, your true colors are coming through! By the way, stop putting words in my mouth; you're not very good at it. You mentioned a case in Texas that we're all familiar with (bad example by the way); are you from Texas, Agent007? That would confirm a lot of my suspicions.
Ok, I'm done now. Enough senseless bantering, I seek discussion with individuals that have a higher I.Q. than their shoe size. Mr. Page is right, you'd be better off sticking to the subject. You tend to wonder and meander about quite a bit when you go off topic.
Hmmm, sub-par effort on your part, kind of boring too.
Thank you for pointing out that I'm a fallible human being. You're right; I did misspell "victim" and now its fixed. Me, a Master of the English language, you say? No, not even close; however, a much higher rate of literacy concerning the aforementioned, I think? Don't you?
What else"¦"¦.oh yes, Agent007, when is the last time you looked up AAA on A.M. Best or CDI? Better yet, when was the last time you looked at a piece of letterhead from the carrier? Never, I suspect, or you would not have made such an ignorant remark about "running inter insurance together." Dummy, their legal name is;
00186 P Interinsurance Exchange of Auto Club United States: California (A.M. Best)
INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB CA 15598 1318 Legal Name (CDI)
Formerly known as; "INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA"?
Oh boy, Agent007, your true colors are coming through! By the way, stop putting words in my mouth; you're not very good at it. You mentioned a case in Texas that we're all familiar with (bad example by the way); are you from Texas, Agent007? That would confirm a lot of my suspicions.
Ok, I'm done now. Enough senseless bantering, I seek discussion with individuals that have a higher I.Q. than their shoe size. Mr. Page is right, you'd be better off sticking to the subject. You tend to wonder and meander about quite a bit when you go off topic.
Hi all,
I'm amazed that everyone wants to give an opinion of the insurance companies and the industry and nobody addressed the reason the claim was denied. Rkunz2 says a pipe clogged and ultimately overflowed. I don't think that would be considered sudden and incidental discharged, so would likely not be covered. I'm not an adjuster but that would be my guess without getting more information. It sounds like the bigger issue was the way this claim was handled by the adjuster. Perhaps AAA management should know how this person relates to their valued clients on claims matters?
I think there is a lot of truth and a lot of BS in what everyone has added to this discussion. The good news is that it's all opinion based on our own knowledge base. In some cases it's obvious that there are some black holes in that knowledge base and in some cases perhaps some information from another line of insurance is affecting the opinions here. I think I will talk to rkunz personally and get some more details and maybe I'll come back and add something else.
Agent007: I'm glad you're in Texas and please stay there. I do wish you were a democrat because you spew like one. You give insurance people and Republicans a bad name.
Lisa6677, are you anywhere in Southern California? All you gentlemen who wrote in, notice there are no spelling errors in Lisa comments, they are to the point and intelligently written! I'm very impressed by her and you guys need to go back to school, at least for a couple of minutes. Sorry Tex, the schools in Texas are closed because of mold. Last I heard, the insurance laws in Texas were the weekest in the country, but I don't pay much attention to that stuff anymore.
Bye now...
I'm amazed that everyone wants to give an opinion of the insurance companies and the industry and nobody addressed the reason the claim was denied. Rkunz2 says a pipe clogged and ultimately overflowed. I don't think that would be considered sudden and incidental discharged, so would likely not be covered. I'm not an adjuster but that would be my guess without getting more information. It sounds like the bigger issue was the way this claim was handled by the adjuster. Perhaps AAA management should know how this person relates to their valued clients on claims matters?
I think there is a lot of truth and a lot of BS in what everyone has added to this discussion. The good news is that it's all opinion based on our own knowledge base. In some cases it's obvious that there are some black holes in that knowledge base and in some cases perhaps some information from another line of insurance is affecting the opinions here. I think I will talk to rkunz personally and get some more details and maybe I'll come back and add something else.
Agent007: I'm glad you're in Texas and please stay there. I do wish you were a democrat because you spew like one. You give insurance people and Republicans a bad name.
Lisa6677, are you anywhere in Southern California? All you gentlemen who wrote in, notice there are no spelling errors in Lisa comments, they are to the point and intelligently written! I'm very impressed by her and you guys need to go back to school, at least for a couple of minutes. Sorry Tex, the schools in Texas are closed because of mold. Last I heard, the insurance laws in Texas were the weekest in the country, but I don't pay much attention to that stuff anymore.
Bye now...