PDA

View Full Version : Hey Fazor, I Have an Insurance Story For You.



BigDon
2012-Apr-17, 06:01 PM
From the "oh wow!" category of corporate inertia.

What impressed me was the speed of the damage control team who made things right. Less than four hours after hitting the news.

So what you have here is your basic case of some monster in a heavy utility pick-up truck abducts an eight year old girl. The next day a concerned citizen spots the subject vehicle while driving his own car but wasn't sure so he pulled along side the pick-up truck to wave the guy over and talk to him about it, (well that's what he said during the interveiw) when the girl in question pops up and screams "Save me mister!"

And you can see in the man's face his eyes get all funny as he remembered it and he told the interveiwer, "Oh man! And then it was go time!"

The concerned citizen fell back and went up the left side of the pick-up truck and jammed the right side of his car into the left front quarter panel of the the truck, forcing it onto the curb and getting a general neighborhood response that caught the badguy and rescued the girl.

Two days later the news runs the story that the man's insurance claim was denied. Why you might ask?

He intentionally wrecked his car. :doh:

Fazor
2012-Apr-17, 06:09 PM
Doesn't surprise me. Though it's unfair to assume that the company is evil and wouldn't have paid if it weren't for public pressure. Intentional acts ARE excluded from coverage. Someone has to specifically step in and say "Hey, for this or that reason we're going to make an exception."

That takes time. So you don't know that they *wouldn't* have paid if not for the bad publicity. Maybe that's why it got resolved so fast -- it was already in motion.

But a ton of insurance companies ARE sleazy and fiercely deny a claim if they see even the littlest opportunity to do so. So, yeah.

Fazor
2012-Apr-17, 08:52 PM
Just because I'm trying to kill the last few minutes before I can log off this work computer, here's something else I'm sure the news didn't consider in their "Evil insurance won't pay" story.

By paying the claim, they've now agreed that it's an insurable loss. But the "rescue driver" caused the accident. By *not* denying the claim, now there's a very good chance that they'll legally have to reimburse the kidnapper for the damage to his truck and any injury incurred. (Unless Cali is a "no-fault" state or something, in which case the policy wouldn't be liable for other-party damage or injury.)

mfumbesi
2012-Apr-18, 07:20 AM
By paying the claim, they've now agreed that it's an insurable loss. But the "rescue driver" caused the accident. By *not* denying the claim, now there's a very good chance that they'll legally have to reimburse the kidnapper for the damage to his truck and any injury incurred. (Unless Cali is a "no-fault" state or something, in which case the policy wouldn't be liable for other-party damage or injury.)
This gave a mental short circuit. It would one of those horrible unintended consequences, from a good deed. I hope you're wrong.

HenrikOlsen
2012-Apr-18, 12:01 PM
Couldn't the insurance payout to the kidnapper then be refused as it would be financial gain as a result (very indirectly) of committing a crime?

NEOWatcher
2012-Apr-18, 12:45 PM
I wonder if it can be twisted in a way to say the accident was the fault of the pickup driver's crime.
That way, the payoff is to the rescuer and the insurance company can go after the pickup driver.

LookingSkyward
2012-Apr-18, 01:56 PM
Lawyers can mobius in multiple dimensions.

Fazor
2012-Apr-18, 04:40 PM
I wonder if it can be twisted in a way to say the accident was the fault of the pickup driver's crime.
That way, the payoff is to the rescuer and the insurance company can go after the pickup driver.

That's the direction I'd take it in, with my extremely limited non-qualified knowledge of law. The kidnapper's action is what forced the situation. He's at fault. I'll pay my insured's damages and then subrogate against the kidnapper/his insurance (which would decline under the "intentional and illegal action" rule.) Sue him personally for the damages -- probably won't *get* anything, but at least you keep fault on his side.

Fazor
2012-Apr-18, 04:45 PM
This gave a mental short circuit. It would one of those horrible unintended consequences, from a good deed. I hope you're wrong.

That's the problem with our tort system, but probably best to stay out of that conversation on BAUT. And I'm certainly not saying it *would* happen, just that it could open the door to the possibility.


Couldn't the insurance payout to the kidnapper then be refused as it would be financial gain as a result (very indirectly) of committing a crime?

Well, insurance isn't financial gain. It's reimbursement.

BigDon
2012-Apr-18, 05:41 PM
Illegal alien in a stolen truck. Solves most of that speculation.

Hey Fazor, I didn't mean anything more than to point this out to you. I'm 52, not 22.

The only men I know my age who buy into all corporations are inherently evil sleep in newspaper yurts down South of Market Street.

Didn't mean to hit a nerve.

Fazor
2012-Apr-18, 05:59 PM
*You* didn't hit a nerve by any means, BigD. Slanted news reporting hits a nerve though. Working where I do, I don't hold a much higher opinion of insurance companies than the average "I hate insurance companies" people. And I work for one that I honestly feel is better than most in their treatment of customers.

But when news stories are happy to stop at "hey, this will upset people" instead of trying to report on the actual issues involved, it's hair-pullingly maddening (hence my frequent involvement in threads like "Bad Reporting.")

It is an interesting story, because I think of those scenarios all the time and wouldn't hesitate to pull a PIT maneuver if ever needed. Which I almost did once, when a moron in a big pickup truck tried to run us off the freeway at speed. Poor move, when you're in the vehicle with absolutely no weight above the rear wheels.