Pre-existing windshield issue?

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 06:06 pm Post Subject:

I know what you mean, Lori. It was very frustrating for claims adjusters to bring their files to me and show me what they had to pay, when they KNEW it was prior damage, but they could not prove it.

This is one of those cases of trying to balancing conflicting needs. It is like the story of the insurance people going to the convention. The salesman had his foot on the gas; the underwriter had her foot on the brake; and the actuary was looking out the back window telling them where to go. Meanwhile, the claims adjuster was sitting in the back seat throwing $100 bills out the window. The product manager's job is to negotiate between them all, find an acceptable course, and get them all to the convention.

We had endless debates about the whole inspection issue. Sales said it was a hindrance to doing business, while claims argued that we were paying claims that we shouldn't. When we tried to quantify how much was being paid out in undeserved claim payments, however, we could never find enough to justify the damper that it put on new business--especially in an independent agency system where our competitors did not require inspections. So we ended up being lenient on inspections in order to write more business; but secretly I was THRILLED when we had jurisdictions that required inspections for anti-fraud. Then we could get our inspections without hurting us competitively.

Now I am an agent for one of the big exclusive companies, and I do 75% of my business through phone and email. My company does not even require signatures if we get the payment by credit card. It took me a while to get comfortable with it. For the first four or five months, I refused to do business without an in-person meeting; and for anyone without prior coverage, I insisted on inspecting the vehicle. Finally I realized that the other several hundred agents in the state were not doing this, and their results would drive the overall rate level, whether or not I went along. Finally I gave in and started doing it by phone. (I still go one step beyond the requirements and send the applicant an email with the coverage acknowledgements and require them to respond "I agree" before I bind the coverage.)

Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 06:44 pm Post Subject:

It's a changed world and as you know, sales is at the top of heap, while claims and u/w are the red headed step children.. :wink: :roll: money drives the decisions in the end...and we are all selling basically the same product...so convenience and customer service (which has turned into the same thing most of the time :roll: )is key....'We' dinosaurs are a dying breed... :lol:

Posted: Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:08 pm Post Subject:

That really is a shame because it would have effects on all of our insurance rates. It seems if they would require more things like car inspection (at the time of insuring) and it cut down claims that would save some money on how much it would cost to insure vehicles. I guess though your right it comes down to the almighty dollar and keeping the customer happy. I seen this a lot when I worked as a sales associate. Stand there and smile even though you knew you were hearing a line of crap.

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 05:39 am Post Subject: Geico checking vehiclde - never!

I live in Florida. Geico has NEVER looked at any of my vehicles, ever. Just got another one, they never looked at it either.

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 05:50 am Post Subject: Pre-Existing or Not, IT SHOULD BE COVERED

By Florida Statutes, it SHOULD NOT MATTER if a windshield has or had previous damage. It should be able to be covered, especially if the vehicle is a DANGER to others on the road as well as to the driver. Sometimes a vehicle may have damage that is unknown until you take possesion of it, if you bought it from a photo, like on-line, and the wording of the Florida statute sounds quite clear to me, as long as you have the correct type of insurance and windshield is damage, BY FLORIDA LAW from how I read it, a WINDSHILED SHOULD BE REPLACED AT NO CHARGE to the INSUREE! Florida Law sure appears to make that a fact from the way I read it. :idea:

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 06:20 am Post Subject:

Windshields are so inexpensive for most cars, that the insurance company is probably not going to quibble over it if you have the comprehensive/other-than-collision coverage on the vehicle. Most companies don't even charge the deductible anymore if a small chip can be cosmetically repaired in order to prevent replacing the entire piece of glass.

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 06:35 am Post Subject:

Florida Law sure appears to make that a fact from the way I read it.

Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 09:24 am Post Subject:

No, the vehicle may have suffered damages that didn't surface at the time when you purchased it, but still it will be considered as an existing damage. Insurance is not meant to cover existing damages - it only covers risks. State laws are there for you to read and understand, so you must have everything on your finger tips before you get your car on the road.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 06:26 am Post Subject: What about this scenario? Aby chane of repair after a blund

Family member buys vehicle. You have not driven it and not when you finally get behind the wheel, you find the windshield is damaged and in need of replacing. You think the damage was pre-existing, you call your insurance to make a claim THINKING the damage had occured previous to vehicle purchase, but in reality, the person that bought or was given the vehicle had done the damage. Now remember you have already called your insurance company and told them you thought it was pre-existing, you find out after they deny the claim, the purchaser/current owner caused the damage AFTER they took possesion. So now what do you do in this type situation where one person had thought the damage was already there, but in reality, the damage occurred by the current owner/driver of the vehicle.

So now what? How would or do you get your insurance to cover damage that WAS NOT pre-existing as you thought, bu told them it was because the owner did not inform you they did the damage while the vehicle was and is isnured for such damage and repair?

We are trying to get the windshield replaced in my wifes vehicle, she was given the car because her brother (original owner and will give statement damage was NOT pre-existing) can no longer drive due to health. My wife ran bad, worn out wipers (not knowing they needed replacing) and has scratched the windsheild so bad sun and headlights glare so bad you can't see to drive the vehicle saely at certain times of day or at night,

The way I read the Florida stature this should be covered at no expense to me, but because I inadvertantly stated to the insurance company I thought the damage was pre-existing, is there any way to overturn that statement? I need to get this repaired and beleive the insurance carrier should replace it. But due to my error they deny the claim, even though I have made attempts to rectify and explain that I was in error of when the damage occured. Damage occured while insured under my current policy with complete and full coverage.

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 08:25 am Post Subject:

Damage occured while insured under my current policy with complete and full coverage.

But due to my error they deny the claim, even though I have made attempts to rectify and explain that I was in error of when the damage occured.