Show Posts
106
General Discussion / Re: Car Insurance
« on: March 18, 2007, 09:21:27 PM »
Danny if your attorney is ok with it, then it should be ok. I agree however with Jody, the use of the term " OR " in that policy wording troubles me. In our Agreed Value coverage with Hagerty, there is no " OR " there is only a statement that Hagerty agrees to pay the amount the car is insured for, period. The "or" is scary for me. You might ask your attorney if he reads the policy such that there is absolutely 100% NO WAY you will ever get less than the 'agreed value' if its stolen or totaled out.
Many times, attorneys or ever insurance agents dont get asked the right question and if they are not into collector cars as we are, they dont follow to the same level of thinking that we do.
Id really hate to see you have any issues later if the right question was not asked. Again, most of us have SF for our other vehicles so its not a bash on SF here. Only that enough folks have found out to late that the right questions were not asked earlier.
Again, we are truely only trying to make 100% sure you would get the full agreed value for your car. Anytime I see " OR " the red light goes on.
If the agent or attorney cannot put this kind of guarantee in writing, something isnt covered.
I would ask for a statement like this " in the event of a totaled situation or stolen car, you will receive NO LESS than $xx,xxx which is the value we agree on at the annual issuance of this policy" unless of course the car was altered or damaged by you prior to the theft or accident.
That would clearly cover you and not give the insurance company any back door out for their use of the word " OR ".
It may seem like nitpicking to others that might read this, but is your pocket going to be missing $20,000 on a claim for $40,000 because the insurance company invokes their 'or' clause?
Have your agent read all these posts we have exchanged and see if he understands our concerns and see what he says. Id be very interested to know why they need the 'or' clause at all.
Thanks for being patient with this discussion, its all for the better understanding of wording that was created by attorneys, not us common folks.
Many times, attorneys or ever insurance agents dont get asked the right question and if they are not into collector cars as we are, they dont follow to the same level of thinking that we do.
Id really hate to see you have any issues later if the right question was not asked. Again, most of us have SF for our other vehicles so its not a bash on SF here. Only that enough folks have found out to late that the right questions were not asked earlier.
Again, we are truely only trying to make 100% sure you would get the full agreed value for your car. Anytime I see " OR " the red light goes on.
If the agent or attorney cannot put this kind of guarantee in writing, something isnt covered.
I would ask for a statement like this " in the event of a totaled situation or stolen car, you will receive NO LESS than $xx,xxx which is the value we agree on at the annual issuance of this policy" unless of course the car was altered or damaged by you prior to the theft or accident.
That would clearly cover you and not give the insurance company any back door out for their use of the word " OR ".
It may seem like nitpicking to others that might read this, but is your pocket going to be missing $20,000 on a claim for $40,000 because the insurance company invokes their 'or' clause?
Have your agent read all these posts we have exchanged and see if he understands our concerns and see what he says. Id be very interested to know why they need the 'or' clause at all.
Thanks for being patient with this discussion, its all for the better understanding of wording that was created by attorneys, not us common folks.
