Thursday, Oct 02, 2003 at 23:23
Truckster
The product disclosure statements, along with the policies of all major insurance companies are designed to be simple state it as it is documents.
You mention that insurance companies can use vague documents to their advantage.
Well the more vague it is the better it is for the insured!
It is up to the insurance company to exclude the risks that they do not want to take, and if it isn’t in the exclusions you have every right to assume you are covered. This is providing you meet the general policy requirements.
Remember, insurance companies are professional underwriters; they cannot exclude liability for something they should reasonably be expected to know. If you are insuring a four wheel drive vehicle, that is purposely designed to go off-road, they can’t reject a claim simply on the basis that they didn’t think you would take it off-road.
But, we can agree to disagree. At the end of the day it is up to the individual to feel comfortable with their own insurance.
However, I will share with you a story that appeared in the recent addition of the VKS 737 magazine. It deals with insurance.
“A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars then insured them again fire among other things. Within a month having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without having yet made his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed his first claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost in a ‘series of small fires’. The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason; that the man has consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued and won!
In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them again fire, without defining what is considered to be ‘unacceptable fire’ and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for the loss of his rare cigars lost in the fires”.
So you can see defining something specifically is not always the best way to go............................
Mind you the lawyer was subsequently arrested, fined, and jailed for intentionally burning his insured property. But that is a completely separate issue (great story though).
Good luck out there
Landie
FollowupID:
23361