| Message |
Author |
|
 Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:35 pm Post subject: Home Break-In Warning! |
|
|
I read an article today that I found incredibly interesting, and I thought I would get the input of some of the adjusters on the board. A woman experienced a home invasion with a fairly large loss (jewelry, silver, money, etc.) She stated that she had never had a claim in the past, and that she had been an excellent customer (never any late payments, etc.) When the police arrived and found the front door wide open, they searched the property to make sure it was safe. There were no signs of forced entry and no borken windows / latches / etc. The only two ways that somebody could have entered the home would be if the front door was unlocked or if the burglar had found the spare key hidden in a fake rock (and then replaced it).
The woman stated in the article that her insurance company was refusing to pay because her negligence caused the loss. She further stated that she was told that because she played a major role in causing the loss, she would have her claim denied.
Has anyone ever dealt with anything like this? |
|
ChrisBantly
Senior member
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 381
Location: Upstate SC
0.52 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll bet any amount that this information is either incorrect or there is a lot of information missing. There is no exclusion for the insureds negligence on the home owners policy. If there was, 90% of all claims would be denied! 
As an instructor used to ask us in class.... "do we pay for stupidity?" Yup, all of the time! |
|
tcope
Forum Expert
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
Posts: 5068
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
272.81 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would agree to the fact that a lot of information is missing.
Homeowner’s policies have a limit on the amount of
jewelry covered for theft. Typically the limit is $1,000 on jewelry that is not specifically insured. If you insure your valuable jewelry, the company will pay a reasonable replacement cost for each of the items scheduled without a deductible for theft. |
|
ramneet
New member
Joined: 09 May 2009
Posts: 13
5.26 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The woman stated in the article that her insurance company was refusing to pay because her negligence caused the loss. She further stated that she was told that because she played a major role in causing the loss, she would have her claim denied. |
I'm throwing up a giant b.s. flag on that one.
| Quote: | | Has anyone ever dealt with anything like this? |
Only NEVER...you know though many years ago, (like 20), some of the auto policys in MO had an exclusion surrounding breakins to vehicle and vehicle theft, if it wasn't forced (ie if you left the keys in the car) it was excluded...Now I don't know how long that was on the books when I came to the biz (1986 or 1987 I can never remember that   )... it was being fazed out at renewals then...
I'd have to know the state this happened in and see the policy that allowed a denial for that claim, ON THOSE GROUNDS...I don't buy it for a second....and am just as sure as I can be that 'somethin's missin' here'....wonder if the actual claims dept told her that or an agent? Was this article in something you could link us to?
As Todd said, and all adjusters know we DO insure stupidity...that's one of the first things you learn when you become and adjuster.. 
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It was in a FA journal that my past employer got me a subscription to (and it has never stopped). It was in an editorial section where she actually wrote in as a question for Insurance Q & A. I wish she would have posted it on here!
_________________
Check Out My Blog!
http://insurancesuccess.ampminsure.org |
|
ChrisBantly
Senior member
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 381
Location: Upstate SC
0.52 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'll bet (since it was in that type of venue-question/answer) there's a WHOLE lot more to that story...
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 2:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
First off, negligence deals with third parties ALWAYS. You cannot be "negligent" under the property portion of your homeowner's policy. Are there exclusions in property contracts that get the company out of certain "stupid acts" of the insured? You betcha, but it has nothing to do with the pure definition of negligence.
Property policies pay for "stupid" all the time. When I was adjusting, we used to have a weekly "contest" for the dumbest move on the part of an insured, and there were plenty of them. I react to "stupid" in the same way I act when people say "insurance doesn't pay for acts of God." That, arguably, is one of the stupidest things I hear. Ok...let's see...WHAT DO YOU THINK A HURRICANE, or an EARTHQUAKE or a FLOOD or a TORNADO or a WINDSTORM is??? Gee...acts of God maybe? Do we pay for those losses? Every day we pay for those losses.
I got a hunch on the matter at hand here...I have a feeling that the coverage was excluded because the insurer discovered the the loss was perpetrated by an INSURED which is absolutely excluded. The "lack of forcible entry" is NOT a barrier to coverage.
Lori brought up a memory. Back in the day, auto insurance DID have an exclusions regarding theft or interior damage/theft of the car that there had to be "visible signs of forced entry" in order to pay for these type of comprehensive losses. How many times have thieves used "slim-jims" to get into a car and leave no sign of forcible entry whatsoever? All the time. Then they came out with an amendatory endorsement that removed the forcible entry requirement, as each state in turn struck down the exclusion.
Homeowner policies are the same way. I have NEVER seen a claim denied (echoing Lori's sentiments) on the grounds stated in this thread. Yup...there's more to it!
InsTeacher  |
|
InsTeacher
Moderator
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 1331
Location: Oregon, USA
118.58 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've heard of that happening but it has never happened to me.
The insurance companies sometimes deny you for the lamest reasons.
I dont get it.
Just be cautious to wut insurance compnay u pick. |
|
hananx3
New member
Joined: 22 May 2009
Posts: 15
2.74 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | The insurance companies sometimes deny you for the lamest reasons.
|
Lamest reasons? Is that the same as insurance companies are finding loop holes to deny my claim, or they are finding words in the “fine print” to deny my claim.
I can’t say how many auto or homeowner policies I've read, but I am still looking for that “fine print”. It seems like all the print is about the same size except for the headers for the different sections.
Loop holes = Limitations and exclusions?
Lamest reasons = Insured didn’t read the policy and thus didn’t read the “fine print” which included the exclusions and limitations.
Rant complete
_________________
Can I say I’m working if I stare blankly at my computer all day? |
|
Dasfuk
Senior member
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 597
Location: Ohio
24.03 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Das...was heading that way myself... | Quote: | | The insurance companies sometimes deny you for the lamest reasons. |
No claim is EVER denied for a 'lame' reason..it's denied for a legal reason...ie, policy not in force (there's the lamest of all!)....claim (for whatever reason) is excluded...coverage excluded...point is these companys are governed folks...a carrier cannot EVER deny a claim for a 'lame' reason.
_________________
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way." Martin Luther King Jr. |
|
Lori
Moderator
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 8173
Location: Missouri
287.90 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Wed May 27, 2009 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have a feeling that the coverage was excluded because the insurer discovered the the loss was perpetrated by an INSURED |
Is it synonymous to insurance fraud?
IMO if the insurance companies keep denying claims for the reason of negligence of the insured no claim will be paid. You can always find certain amount of human negligence in every situation.
Now, the insurance company can deny paying for the damages that you have suffered in hurricane stating that you should have applied your wits in not buying house in a hurricane prone area. Does it happen this way? No! |
|
JeremyHolter
Senior member
Joined: 06 Jun 2007
Posts: 1194
210.30 Dollars($)
|
|
| Posted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Stupidity costs a lot of money...but it also is job security! Can you imagine how different the insurance industry would be if everybody used due caution and was careful in every day life? Sure there would still be accidents and natural disasters...but it would still be dramatically different.
Of course if you take stupidity out, there go half the lawsuits that are clogging our court system as well. I guess I should stop before I go on a rant! |
|
ChrisBantly
Senior member
Joined: 11 Mar 2009
Posts: 381
Location: Upstate SC
0.52 Dollars($)
|
|
