"SteveLehto" (stevelehto)
09/11/2014 at 13:00 • Filed to: None
56
100|
"SteveLehto" (stevelehto)
09/11/2014 at 13:00 • Filed to: None | 56
| 100 |
Too often, people think that buying insurance solves all their problems. Not always. The real question is: How readily will the insurance company pay a valid claim? I am an attorney and have been handling consumer protection cases in Michigan now for 23 years. I wrote a post the other day about !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and I got a ration of grief from readers telling me that attorneys are not necessary to solve consumer problems. I've got one more true story for you.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
I had a client - let's call him Milo - who had a coin collection. He kept it in the home he owned with his wife, and insured with a smaller insurance company you have probably never heard of. Milo lived in a fairly small town and actually went into his agent's office each year to review his coverages and to chit chat. That's how people are in small-town Michigan. One year he mentioned his coin collection and his agent told him, "Jeepers, That needs a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ." She filled out some forms, told Milo how much extra it was going to cost him, and he paid the premium. For the next few years he paid the premiums. Then, his house was burgled and, among other things, the coin collection was stolen. Milo called the police and then called his agent. The agent took his claim and said she would see to it that it was handled pronto.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
After some dilly-dallying, also expected in small-town Michigan, the insurance company sent Milo a nice letter with a check. The check was short the exact amount of the coin collection's value - between $5,000 and $10,000 - and the letter explained why. "Your coin collection was excluded under your policy which specifies that coins, jewelry, monetary instruments [etc] are not covered unless you purchase a special rider specifically for them . . . "
Milo called his agent and reminded her that he had bought a rider for the coin collection. And the insurance company had acknowledged this when they had billed him for the policy with the special rider the last few years.
"Golly, I"ll get right on that." About an hour later, she called him back. "Well, Heck. They won't pay the claim since coins aren't covered under your policy. You needed to buy a special rider for that."
"But I bought the special rider for my coin collection. I bought it from you ."
"Whillikers, I told 'em that. They said that coins still aren't covered under your policy because you'd need a special rider for that."
Yes, this was the paradox. He had bought the rider and the insurance company insisted he had no coverage because that would require a rider. Which he had bought. He had paperwork to prove it - copies of the rider, statements from the insurance company, canceled checks. And they insisted that without the rider there was no coverage. Sorry. Should have bought the rider.
Milo wrote letters and called everyone he could think of. I did not witness the phone calls but I read the letters. He was calm and polite and explained his problem clearly. He attached copies of the policy, the rider, and the police report. His correspondence went unanswered. Whenever he got someone from the insurance company on the phone, they told him he had to speak to his agent.
Milo hired me; I filed suit. A day or so after the suit was served on the insurance company, I got a phone call. Much like the conversations above which have been reconstructed from memory, it went something like this:
Me: Hello.
Insurance Company Attorney: Who do we make the check out to?
When I asked why we were forced to file suit the attorney laughed and made some other non-verbal noises from his end of the line. Then, "I wasn't involved with that decision. The check is being ordered today."
Why didn't any government agencies help him? In Michigan, the department that oversees insurance is worthless. They take the complaint and give it to the company. If the company responds in any manner, they tell the complainant that it is a "civil matter." In other words: "Sue them."
Why did the insurance company deny Milo's claim? It may have been incompetence on the part of the company. They may have wondered if he would file a lawsuit. "Do people in small towns file lawsuits? Let's find out!" But, before he hired me, Milo had exhausted the more logical complaint methods - calling and writing to executives of the company, the media and so on. It wasn't until a suit was filed that he got his money.
Yes, I understand that this example is extreme. But these things do happen. We just hope they never happen to us. And for those who insist I plainly state the moral for every piece I write, it is this: Research your insurance to find out their customer service ratings, especially how well they pay claims. The information is out there on the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Follow me on Twitter:
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
Steve Lehto has been practicing consumer protection and
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
for 23 years in Michigan. He taught Consumer Protection at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law for ten years and wrote
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
. He also wrote
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
and
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:06 |
|
Another good article.
Man I'm planning a post about insurance companies on OPPO today too lol (a silly thing about the most expensive possible way to save 50 bucks a month on insurance)
yamahog
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:06 |
|
Don't even get me started on insurance riders here in Michigan. I think I may need to befriend an attorney.
Sam
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:08 |
|
I'm with Geico and had a massive at-fault accident which totaled both cars. Not only did they pay within a month, they also only raised my rates a bit (around $5-10 a month). I also got lucky and they paid me more than $5k totaled on a car which I bought for $3k.
I'd recommend Geico if you want someone who will pay out.
Bad Idea Hat
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:08 |
|
I don't want to insult your field of employment, but I think personally that there is something wrong when companies feel that it's advantageous to them to force the process into the legal system as a way of bilking customers.
The best way to stop this, in my opinion, would be to not only force companies to do this to cover any and all attorney fees for the plaintiff (providing they win), but also to incur a percentage penalty as a punitive award for the plaintiff's loss of time in trying to resolve these issues.
I also want my own Ferrari, and a Unicorn, and a Bear that plays hockey.
|
SteveLehto
> MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
09/11/2014 at 13:08 |
|
It's just funny how insurance companies always pop into the conversation whenever I am asked about the "craziest" cases I have ever had.
Thanks for the note.
|
SteveLehto
> Sam
09/11/2014 at 13:09 |
|
I've heard a lot of good things about Geico. In the case in the story, the company was kind of small. I had never heard of them and I think the client only went with them because the agent steered him there.
Chairman Kaga
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:09 |
|
I honestly wonder if there's an unwritten policy in billing, insurance, or customer service in general, that states since most people either don't pay attention or don't have the faculties to pursue rectification, go ahead and screw with the customer in hopes they'll give up, thus profit.
|
yamahog
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:10 |
|
I can direct you to a Russian who used to play hockey, is that close enough?
BJ
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:11 |
|
Another interesting article, Steve. I think the moral of the story might also be this: "Be informed, keep your paperwork, and don't back down when you know you're in the right."
|
SteveLehto
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:11 |
|
You are not insulting my field of employment (law) by saying that. I wish that was the case too. And I, too, would like a hover bike, a death ray, and a million dollars in small, unmarked bills.
|
SteveLehto
> Chairman Kaga
09/11/2014 at 13:12 |
|
Whether it is a rule or not, there is an incentive for them to deny claims when there is no downside. They get caught? They have to pay the claim.
|
SteveLehto
> BJ
09/11/2014 at 13:13 |
|
That too! Thanks. And if you haven't already, please follow me on twitter: @stevelehto.
|
Bad Idea Hat
> yamahog
09/11/2014 at 13:13 |
|
Is he stronk like bear?
|
yamahog
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:15 |
|
I haven't been able to convince him to pick things up and put things down with me, but the steering on the Miata is probably a decent workout.
spanfucker retire bitch
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:17 |
|
While it's certainly not universal, in my experience a lot of smaller insurance companies tend to want to drag things out and fuck people over more. Again, at least in my anecdotal experience dealing with a man's insurance company who rear-ended me and had told me to my face, as well as to his insurance company that he was at fault.
Took me nearly 2 months before they would pay me for the cost to repair the damages.
ncasolowork2
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:17 |
|
You raised a question, but didn't really answer it. Perhaps there isn't an answer. Don't we have consumer protection laws that protect us against fraudulent business practices such as this? In addition to his claim shouldn't the insurance company be criminally liable for this due to the amount they were withholding? I understand when the case isn't cut and dry, but you've described something where things were well documented and clear. I'm sorry, but refusal to pay on a dollar amount that large is stealing and stealing that much money is a felony.
So why isn't the insurance company in a criminal court room after something like that? The fact that there are no real consequences other than paying a claim if suit is brought against them is a joke. As someone who lives in Michigan who do I complain to about this?
|
SteveLehto
> spanfucker retire bitch
09/11/2014 at 13:18 |
|
I suspect you are right. Smaller companies have to watch their bottom lines more closely - and probably view all claims more skeptically (even the good ones).
KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:19 |
|
It boils down to "Hey, we've got lawyers on staff and we are paying them anyway, and $_Customer[34219] doesn't."
Their marginal cost for sending their staff attorney to court? His expenses. It's not as if they have to pay him *extra* for the time.
The customer on the other hand? Yeah, he generally doesn't have an attorney on retainer, so it will have much much higher marginal costs to take it to court.
And then they won't have that customer anymore, which to them is fine, because they are a "Problem Customer" (Meaning, they will complain if we try to screw them over, as opposed to just giving us more money)
|
SteveLehto
> ncasolowork2
09/11/2014 at 13:22 |
|
That is the problem. There are no consumer protection laws in MICH which will protect you in this situation. (Other than to file suit like we did.) And the gov't doesn't view what the insurance companies do as "stealing." They treat it like a civil dispute which means that if you don't like it, you file suit. There is a regulator of insurance but, as I said, they are worthless. I have tried (on behalf of clients) to complaint to them on cases like this which are cut and dry and guess what? They tell me to go and file suit since there is nothing they can do (or want to do, take your pick).
People need to realize this and remember it at election time. Our legislators know about these problems but don't seem to care. And the Michigan Supreme Court has also ruled several times in this field, always in favor of insurance companies.
zeontestpilot
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:29 |
|
I'm curious, how much is it to hire a lawyer?
|
SteveLehto
> zeontestpilot
09/11/2014 at 13:32 |
|
Depends on the case etc. Most attorneys will meet with you for free to discuss your case. Then, you can hire them hourly or contingency (where you give up a 1/3 etc of the recovery if you win but you pay the attorney no fees if you lose). Hourly rates depend on a variety of factors.
Paullubbock
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:41 |
|
Don't tell me let me guess. It is a Republican state?
RMudkips
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:41 |
|
I can find you a hairy-enough Canadian up here.
|
RMudkips
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:43 |
|
Ouch. Stuff like this makes me worry about becoming 18 and over, where I have to do taxes and insurance for my life. Lots of stories I hear from others about nasty insurance companies, including yours.
I think Jalopnik should really hire you, your articles are informative, clear, and helpful.
|
SteveLehto
> Paullubbock
09/11/2014 at 13:44 |
|
Let's see. The Gov, yes. The Supreme Court, yes. Both houses in Lansing, yes.
RaceVet
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:44 |
|
I had an enjoyable experience with Progressive. My car was stolen, and within 30 days they paid me a check valued over twice what I paid for the car, and never raised my rates. Actually, they seem to lower my rates every couple months now, and this only happened 2 years ago. I was impressed. No drama, no lawyers, and I've never heard from them about it since. I expected less from a big insurance company.
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:44 |
|
Reader is not how you spell idiot. Just thought you might want to know that. Rather embarrassing mistake to end up on a front page article, but it happens to everyone.
|
SteveLehto
> RMudkips
09/11/2014 at 13:45 |
|
Thanks for the note. And follow me on Twitter (it's another "cool" thing grown ups do) if you haven't already. @stevelehto
Thanks again.
|
SteveLehto
> RaceVet
09/11/2014 at 13:45 |
|
Notice that in my story it was a small company. I have also heard good things about Progressive (at least, anecdotally).
Spoon II
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:47 |
|
You write awesome articles! That's all I have to say.
SlowpokeTexas
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:47 |
|
It would be awesome of if you could name the company. This kind of unscrupulous behavior should be shamed.
|
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:48 |
|
These should be federal laws. Consumer protection in the USA stinks.
The fear lots of folks have is that a lawyer will cost more than the $5k they are out. I am not saying this is a legitimate fear, just that lawyers need to market better. Put prices out in front for folks to see, so to speak.
I once let a $500 deposit go because the landlord wanted to fight about it. He claimed I destroyed the carpet and my lease said it was worth thousands. The destruction was from a leaky window he refused to fix. It was simply not worth it to me to take the time off work, the stress and everything else. Looking back I should have at least talked to a lawyer.
C-5M Load Smasher
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:49 |
|
Great article Steve. I've only had one negative dealing with an Insurance company (USAA) but it was a dispute on what my claim amount should be. I had a house fire and $25000 in renters insurance, I told them I had just under $22000 in losses(with picture evidence in some cases before/after). They came back and decided that my loss was only $12000.... You can understand my disbelief when they told my loss was 10 grand less than what I actually lost. After some upset phone calls (I had lost my dog to this fire) they came back and re-evaluated it to 19 grand. Much better but still wasn't able to replace everything. Some stuff I couldn't put a value on due to it being a gift/sentimental. I just couldn't believe that they wanted to short me like that. They did the same thing to my roommate but he only had 10k and maxed it out regardless.
|
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:49 |
|
Which is why they need to be punished. It should be if you willfully deny a claim that was legitimate you pay 2X. Do it more than Y times in a year and the multiple goes up
|
SteveLehto
> SlowpokeTexas
09/11/2014 at 13:49 |
|
Sorry but I can't do that. Let's just hope they're so small that you never run across them.
fiverguy
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:49 |
|
Wow. Another fantastic story. And the best part is, this story perfectly backs up the wisdom given in an Insurance Law course last night.
(Yes, law student. Jalops and Oppos, let your best lawyer jokes fly.)
shop-teacher
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:50 |
|
"I also want my own Ferrari, and a Unicorn, and a Bear that plays hockey."
"And I, too, would like a hover bike, a death ray, and a million dollars in small, unmarked bills."
I'm really glad my office is completely isolated, with nobody else nearby. I started laughing uncontrollably, quite loudly.
|
SteveLehto
> StevenG
09/11/2014 at 13:50 |
|
Some states do have laws which punish the bad faith denials. Michigan is obviously not one of them. But I agree with you, there OUGHT to be a law.
|
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:51 |
|
1/3 in this case could have been very bad. It might mean losing even more money than taking the lowball insurance offer. Which is another reason insurance companies pull this crap. If they think you don't have the cash to pay hourly, they can lowball you so long as it is not as bad as that.
CaptainWompus
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 13:51 |
|
When it comes to No-Fault Litigation in Michigan, the plaintiff can be awarded penalty interest & attorney fees if they win the case.
|
SteveLehto
> C-5M Load Smasher
09/11/2014 at 13:52 |
|
I've always heard good things about them. Sadly, many adjusters view the process as a big negotiation (and many insureds assume that the offer they get is ironclad - not a starting point to negotiate.)
|
SteveLehto
> fiverguy
09/11/2014 at 13:52 |
|
Thanks for the note. Where are you going to school?
|
SteveLehto
> StevenG
09/11/2014 at 13:53 |
|
Yes. And here the offer was Zero ($0).
|
SteveLehto
> StevenG
09/11/2014 at 13:54 |
|
I do not understand this comment. Was there a misspelled word in the piece?
PatBateman
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:54 |
|
Back in the '80s, my parents owned an RV. It was stolen. They called the insurance company, the insurance company told them to send in the police report and title so a check could be cut for the loss. Everything was sent in. Then my Dad gets a call from the insurance company telling him that they wouldn't be cutting a check, nor returning the title. No explanation.
After calls to all of their managers to get it straightened out, Dad hires an attorney. The lawyer looks over the docs, smiles, and then asks my dad the following question: Do you want a check for the RV, or do you want to own the insurance company? Dad said he just wanted his check.
It was hand delivered the following day.
|
SteveLehto
> PatBateman
09/11/2014 at 13:55 |
|
That's funny. And it makes you wonder what was really going on there.
But a good result is a win, regardless of whether we get to hear the funny details.
Thanks.
rubix
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:56 |
|
Hmmmm, but it hasn't always been that way now has it.
|
fiverguy
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:56 |
|
University at Buffalo — last year.
DetroitMuscle
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:57 |
|
My wife slipped on the ice while opening her car door,causing her to fall in a way that broke her leg.Eventually,because she had no medical insurance,I called Hartford,our car insurance company, in the seemingly hopeless pursuit of trying to find some financial help with the huge bills piling up.They immediately and pleasantly agreed to pay for every single cost involved,including even paying me to take care of her along with reimbursing her for her travel expenses and lost wages.They even paid me to do the laundry and dishes!I was in disbelief that an insurance company would be so anxious to make a difficult situation more tolerable.Never will I change to a different company,it's me an Hartford for the long term.
|
C-5M Load Smasher
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 13:58 |
|
It's totally a negotiation. My boss about lost his shit and told me to call them back and read them the riot act. I did not follow all of his advice, just called and asked how they came up with their numbers. Blah blah blah. It took about a week to get the correct price. And then we ended up getting out full months rent back plus our full security deposit so it wasn't too bad. EDIT - got the rent and sec dep back from the owners insurance company.
|
Mike H.
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:01 |
|
Steve - just curious what it cost this guy for you to get this resolved for him (ballpark)?
|
SteveLehto
> rubix
09/11/2014 at 14:01 |
|
No. I was simply answering his question. The reason the laws do not help here (primarily) is that the MI Supreme Court gutted our Consumer Protection Act a few years ago. Most people have no idea what the Sup Crt even does but they are an elected bunch.
Jimmy Joe Meeker
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:03 |
|
Why is it this way? Why do companies, governments, and individuals intentionally wrong people and then fix it when the lawsuit is filed?
Because suing someone is expensive and time consuming. Why is it expensive and time consuming? Courts are a monopoly of the government. Lawyers are cartel of the bar association. This leads to high prices and not much consideration for people's time. Nor is there motivation to increase court services (costs) that will spread the existing tax, fine, and fee monies thinner.
But you say you don't have to use a lawyer. The court is a temple and if you don't learn all the proper incantations you aren't going to win the case. Furthermore the court is about relationships. Even if one learns the incantations as an outsider one will find himself at a disadvantage. Hiring a lawyer, especially the right lawyer buys access to the club.
So because of the expense and time involved there's always a chance the person being wronged will just say 'f' it' and walk away.
Why is this not fixed? If it's fixed then a lot of people lose the standard of living to which they've become accustomed.
|
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:05 |
|
I should have included the quote:
and I got a ration of grief from readers telling me that attorneys are not necessary to solve consumer problems.
The corrected version
and I got a ration of grief from idiots telling me that attorneys are not necessary to solve consumer problems.
Prophet of hoon
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:06 |
|
As a Christian and an attorney, I look forward to the day I'm unemployed. Until then, I've come to realize people are bastard coated bastards with extra creamy bastard filling.
|
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:06 |
|
My mistake I thought it would be 1/3 the whole amount not merely the contested portion.
Is that how it normally works out? If the claim is for 100,000 the insurance companies offers $70,000 and the the contested amount on the rider is the $30,000 your contingency pricing would only be on the $30k?
|
Prophet of hoon
> ncasolowork2
09/11/2014 at 14:08 |
|
Yes, in some states we have failure-to-indemnify laws which treble the damages and allow for attorney's fees. The law will generally prohibit what happened in the story, really good laws make the failure to mount a defense actionable as well.
|
SteveLehto
> StevenG
09/11/2014 at 14:08 |
|
Contingency generally works on the recovery achieved through the suit. Here, my client had already gotten a recovery and the only thing left was this claim.
|
Prophet of hoon
> Paullubbock
09/11/2014 at 14:09 |
|
oh good lord
|
ncasolowork2
> Paullubbock
09/11/2014 at 14:09 |
|
Michigan has been democratic for a long time, but is typically a swing state.
|
SteveLehto
> Jimmy Joe Meeker
09/11/2014 at 14:10 |
|
You raise some valid points but I don't think the problem in my story was caused by attorneys. Attorneys fixed the problem. The real problem is that corporations try to maximize their profits (which is why they exist) and sometimes they go too far in pursuit of profits. And why is this? Because there is no economic disincentive for them if they behave badly and money is all they respond to. (Ie., the bottom line.)
|
StevenG
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:11 |
|
That bring me back to my original point though. If this was not on a separate rider, 1/3 might exceed the value he would gain by engaging a lawyer. Which is something the insurance companies count on.
Not saying you do not deserve to get paid, only the rational reason some folks might avoid bother with a lawyer and how insurance companies expect to get away with it. The best solution is of course to make the insurance company not the client pay you. That would of course require some new laws.
|
SteveLehto
> Prophet of hoon
09/11/2014 at 14:11 |
|
There is much wisdom in our post.
|
SteveLehto
> StevenG
09/11/2014 at 14:12 |
|
Oh, I agree. They are banking on people walking away from "smaller" claims. And they figure attorney won't do contingency cases where the amount in dispute is much less than $10,000.
BLOZUP
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 14:12 |
|
Perhaps some bad faith law. If the insurance company is found (somehow) to be avoiding paying out unless sued, then they should not only pay for the claim, but refund all premiums paid. This way it's like the person never had insurance to begin with, which mirrors the attitude of the insurance company: Money coming in without any real responsibility.
Peptide
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:15 |
|
This is largely irrelevant. Without going into excessive detail, one of my parents was the Deputy Commissioner (Compliance) for the State of Michigan Insurance Bureau (as the organization was known at the time), and they concentrate primary on fraud, at both the agent and the underwriter level. They have never had the budget, for as long as I can remember, to handle this kind of complaint and many would argue that this a contractual issue, and not a regulatory issue.
|
Jimmy Joe Meeker
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:15 |
|
Sounds like the state insurance regulator is operating as designed.
|
PatBateman
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:17 |
|
A guy came over to the house claiming to represent the local RV dealer. He asked for the keys to take a look at the inside to see if they would make an offer. My mother obliged, then had to go back in to deal with my little sister. Guy jumped in and drove off. This was in small town East Texas, things like that didn't happen.
|
SteveLehto
> Peptide
09/11/2014 at 14:17 |
|
I have mentioned this before - the agencies in Lansing which oversee things like this (whether insurance or other consumer issue) are generally underfunded, understaffed and can only focus on the big stuff. BIG stuff. The problem is that this stuff seems big to the person it is happening to at the time.
JW
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:18 |
|
Why didn't the previous Gov. fix it then? She had 8 years to do so. I'm not really sure it's a "party" issue as you are seemingly agreeing with.
|
dct
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 14:19 |
|
Agreed. My dealings with comcast have been egregiously painful.
|
SteveLehto
> JW
09/11/2014 at 14:19 |
|
I didn't say it was a party issue. He asked me a question. I gave him what I believe to be a correct answer.
|
Prophet of hoon
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:24 |
|
When I started law school, I thought I had as dim of view of people as was possible. Now, 10 years in, I realize was wrong, and I've yet to see the bottom.
|
SteveLehto
> Prophet of hoon
09/11/2014 at 14:24 |
|
The good news is that these stories ARE extreme. I've had 23 years to pick up a few doozies.
Futrell's Indenor XD2 needs a head gasket
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:25 |
|
Steve, I want to add another to the countless 'thank you' comments you get on your posts. If you're not getting a piece of Gawker ad revenue, I hope you're at least getting some additional business/book sales out of this. Big fan here.
Clay_T
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:26 |
|
So the short answer is file the claim, and the lawsuit at the same time...
|
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:26 |
|
for a quick laugh:
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/most-expensive…
|
SteveLehto
> Futrell's Indenor XD2 needs a head gasket
09/11/2014 at 14:27 |
|
Thanks for the note. I have a lot of fun writing these and am glad people seem to enjoy them. If you haven't already, follow me on twitter @stevelehto. (That is my real reward - twitter followers!)
|
SteveLehto
> Clay_T
09/11/2014 at 14:27 |
|
Well, keep in mind this case was extreme. The real point is that you should never be lulled into a false sense of security.
Krash-Kadillak
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:30 |
|
Sometimes insurance companies do the RIGHT thing. Early in my career as an insurance adjuster, I was assigned a case involving a fatality. A man was driving with his wife and young child near downtown L.A., on the way to lunch. At a stop light, they get rear-ended, then the other driver, attempting to steal the insured's vehicle, shoots and kills the insured, who by that time had exited his vehicle. So, technically, this was a murder, rather than a death caused by the accident. The criminals fled. I don't remember if they were caught. The insured had a minimal $30k coverage under his uninsured motorist coverage, and his widow and child would need it. Technically, based on the policy language, you could deny the claim, but the insurance company had a kind heart and paid it. No attorney involved, BTW.
|
SteveLehto
> Krash-Kadillak
09/11/2014 at 14:36 |
|
That is a cool story. As one might imagine, stories like that don't get publicized all that much (nor do the run of the mill ones). I went to law school in LA and a good friend of mine there was a long time adjuster for one of the major companies. He had a lot of great stories . . .
jimz
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:39 |
|
Maude Flanders: "We didn't have insurance. Ned considers it a form of gambling."
kschang
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:40 |
|
Part of the problem is insurance has turned into this "adversarial" experience.
A few months ago my car had an unfortunate run-in with a motorcyclist. I was double-parked in an alley to let my passenger off. My passenger just got his door open and was about to step out when a motorcycle came up the alley and KABAM! Ran into the open door. He wasn't going that fast, and the bike's definitely drivable (lost the little "windshield") AND the guy wasn't injured AND he turned out to have the SAME insurer that I USED TO HAVE.
Should be eazy-peazy, right? Wrong. One adjuster's on motorcycle team, other's on car team. And they won't give an inch to each other. Had to get two separate quotes at two separate places. THEN they had a fight about it, THEN they had a fight on how much culpability I have.
To this date my door still ain't fixed. I think I'll have to pay out-of-pocket for this one.
|
SteveLehto
> jimz
09/11/2014 at 14:40 |
|
Nor does their car have airbags. The church opposes them for "some reason."
|
SteveLehto
> kschang
09/11/2014 at 14:41 |
|
Departments within the same company fighting? Now that is amazing.
GreenN_Gold
> RMudkips
09/11/2014 at 14:43 |
|
Don't fret taxes too much, they should be easy for you at first. Probably just wages to report if you're like the typical teen.
As far as insurance, expect to get royally screwed if you're like the typical teen.
The Gray Adder
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 14:45 |
|
First you have to get rid of the five year olds the Tea Party got elected to your legislature. And your idiot governor. You're stuck with Ted Nugent, though. Not our problem, thank God.
maximum_sarge
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:47 |
|
"You don't have a lawyer? We won't pay." That's the truth. I've been rear-ended (strict liability) and run off the road by a drunk driver, and until I start sounding like a lawyer, the offerings are tiny. You have to get a lawyer invested in your situation (and the attendant 40% commission) to even get literally half of what you're owed.
That's the insurance business. I'm convinced it's where the lowliest of people go to find career satisfaction.
|
kschang
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:48 |
|
From what I understand, they are not even in the same city.
|
maximum_sarge
> Bad Idea Hat
09/11/2014 at 14:48 |
|
"You can go fuck yourself. We're never giving you a bear that plays hockey. That's not in your policy limitations."
- Geico
Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time?
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:48 |
|
Why do you want small bills? Wouldn't normal-sized bills of small denominations be enough?
|
Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time?
> maximum_sarge
09/11/2014 at 14:50 |
|
How about a gecko that talks?
|
MPR717
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:50 |
|
It's amazing to me how many people tell me that the understand that insurance companies can be evil, but not THEIR insurance company, because they have a great relationship with the local agent. As you know, doesn't matter. Insurance companies are looking out for nothing other than the bottom line.
Not sure if you are aware of this case out of Philly from earlier this year, but the long and short was that Nationwide refused to total a vehicle that was clearly undriveable, ordered their repair shop to "fix" it and put an unsafe car back on the road, hid evidence of the damage to the car, and, when the owners filed suit, spent $3 million defending a $25,000 claim. They were hit with an $8 million bad faith verdict: http://articles.philly.com/2014-07-14/new…
|
SteveLehto
> maximum_sarge
09/11/2014 at 14:51 |
|
What state are you in? I am always interested to hear because it does seem to vary wildly from state to state.
|
maximum_sarge
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:51 |
|
Because gerrymandering is a thing. Welcome to Michigan.
|
SteveLehto
> Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time?
09/11/2014 at 14:51 |
|
No, I want it in small bills so that it looks more substantial. A mountain o'cash.
|
SteveLehto
> Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time?
09/11/2014 at 14:52 |
|
Only if he's half unicorn.
|
Remember dialing "popcorn" for the time?
> spanfucker retire bitch
09/11/2014 at 14:52 |
|
My theory on insurance (besides no one outside of insurance companies knowing how they work) is that they know they will pay some amount, they just want to delay it as long as possible.
davedave1111
> SteveLehto
09/11/2014 at 14:52 |
|
I'm not clear on when costs are awarded in the US, but it seems this is another situation where loser-pays-for-all would solve the problem.
|
maximum_sarge
> Peptide
09/11/2014 at 14:52 |
|
So they concentrate on cases where the big insurance company is being taken advantage of by customers, as opposed to the other way around?