Umbrella policies being gutted by State Farm
I am in California. I just got the renewal bill for my personal
umbrella policy, and the "Important Notice" brochure that always comes
with it said, "The definition of insured is revised so that a person or
organization using an insured's auto, RV or watercraft is no longer
covered." So, when I let a valet park my car, he's not covered. If I
loan my car to a friend, relative, or neighbor, they're not covered. If
my ski boat was running - it isn't right now - and I let a friend drive
it to tow me, he's not covered. (Yes, I know that my "underlying" car
insurance covers them up to the limits of that policy, but those limits
are only enough to pay for a stubbed toe.)I called my agent and she was totally unaware of the change, and asked
me to fax her a copy of the brochure. Then, once she called the
underwriters, she still seemed unconcerned. She was happy to quote me
the increase in premiums to bring each of my car polcies up to the same
limits that were formerly covered by the Umbrella. An additional $206
per year. I will pay the money, because I own a home and it is vital
that I remain insured up to a high limit. I have taken the trouble to write this post because I think that a lot
of other people will fail to read the "Important Notice" (the brochure
is 17 pages long), will simply write the check like they do every other
year, and will end up with a big gap in their coverage. And their
insurance agent won't take the trouble to call them or write them a
personal letter telling about the big gap that just opened up in their
coverage. So, look out! And warn your friends. Ham |
Hamish
Jul 16
|
| Ok..... then, is the friend covered by any sort of insurance that *he*
purchased? |
Gene
Jul 18
|
|
I will defer this for Calf Bill to answer based on his expertise in the area
of personal insurance. Let's see what he has to say on this. ;-) |
JimH
Jul 18
|
|
Bilious Bill has a lot of claims, eh? |
HK
Jul 18
|
| I thought RG was our infamous insurance hawker.
This is one of the few times he has an opportunity to add something of value
to the discussion...rather than his usual outhouse overflow. |
Don
Jul 18
|
| Get your head out of Harry's ass. The OP was about not being covered by the
umbrella policy if someone not in the family is driving the vehicle.
Umbrella's cover you when all other insurance is exhausted. And if you are
not covered by the Umbrella when an non relation drives, it is worthless
insurance. It was never to cover the unrelated person, it was always to
cover Yourself and family if something happens that exceeds the limits on
your other policies. And most umbrella require at least a $500k policy on
the car, boat, etc. JimH, this is what an umbrella policy is. And if it
does not cover you (never covered the non-insured driver of your car) if an
uninsured or underinsured person drives your car, and gets in an accident,
your policy is worthless! |
Calif
Jul 18
|
| You label anything offensive that does not conform to your apparent self
interests. Either that or you don't care to look at the facts.
I suggest you look at facts with reason and logic and not some
allegiance, blind or otherwise. |
nada
Jul 18
|
| Lemming... |
Dan
Jul 18
|
| <crickets> Hey Bill, we need an answer. ;-) |
JimH
Jul 18
|
| I gave my answer. Was the sh*t add a commercial you worked in? |
Calif
Jul 19
|
| Huh? Care to repeat that, this time in English Bill? |
JimH
Jul 19
|
| You shouldn't post after you drink, Bilious. |
HK
Jul 19
|
| Thank you. I've been waiting all day for that. |
JoeSpareBedroom
Jul 17
|
| Many refuse to recognize it. The administration is about eliminating
"unnecessary regulation, which is to say all regulation of big business.
The credit card industry managed to gain all control and regulation of
its dealings with customers and in the process anyone that has any
"contract" with big business. They write unilateral contracts and have
the power to change and enforce them. They reserve the right to use our
judicial system to enforce them but virtually eliminate the citizen
access to redress of our Laws and Courts.
The food supply is no longer safe. Adulteration of our foods is now
allowed to be labeled all natural and so and so on.
Big business has gotten every thing on its dream list in the last
several years including unregulated oil industry which operates as a cabal.
Their definitional of free trade and elimination of unnecessary
government etc is survival of the consumer and citizen in the jungle
full of their predation.
Caveat Emptor is more relevant today than anytime, in history.
Our Republic is seriously wounded. |
nada
Jul 17
|
| Yup! |
HK
Jul 17
|
| We do, it's called competition. Look it up... |
Dan
Jul 18
|
| Where do you get this crap? The Onion? |
Dan
Jul 18
|
| Someone steals your car. You are liable for the damage the car causes.
That is one reason to have an umbrella or high limit coverage if you have
large asset base. My secretary years ago told of her boyfriend getting sued
because his motorhome ran into another auto while in the dealership being
serviced. If you do not get enough money from the dealership, you also sue
the owner of the vehicle. |
Calif
Jul 18
|
| California minimum insurance is 15/30 (I think it is 20/40 now). But if you
own the car and own a house and stock, you will be sued for those items by
the killed persons heirs. You have the deep pockets and are the owner of
the car. |
Calif
Jul 18
|
| You do not seem to understand an umbrella policy. |
Calif
Jul 18
|
| He was never included under the GL umbrella policy. You were, and you will
be sued if someone in your vehicle kills someone. And the GL umbrella
coverage is not there for that. |
Calif
Jul 18
|
| >>> |
akheel
Jul 18
|
| BINGO! Give that man a ceegar! |
JimH
Jul 18
|
| Based on your 'contributions' to this thread, I would say you are the one
who doesn't have a clue what it is and how it works. |
JimH
Jul 18
|
| 1. The valet company should have their own insurance. 2. Don't loan your car or boat to anyone outside your family. 3. Why should the insurance company cover anyone but you and your family? So what is the big deal? |
JimH
Jul 16
|
| OMG. You continue to amaze me. |
JimH
Jul 16
|
| I think you're on thin ice with this one, Harry. Why should State Farm
insure anyone who has permission to drive your car? 90% of drivers are
blind, dead, drunk or stupid. If they don't know enough to turn in their
keys and kill themselves, it follows logically that they are not capable of
knowing who's competent to borrow their cars. |
JoeSpareBedroom
Jul 16
|
| It has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with corporate
greed: "... Then, once she called the
>>>> underwriters, she still seemed unconcerned. She was happy to
quote me
>>>> the increase in premiums to bring each of my car polcies up to the
same
>>>> limits that were formerly covered by the Umbrella. An additional
$206 |
HK
Jul 16
|
| Then, the OP should've immediately called around to other agencies for
quotes. And, if he took his business elsewhere, he should've faxed a copy of
the new policy to the underwriter, just to needle her. "Here's what you
threw away, asshole...." |
JoeSpareBedroom
Jul 17
|
| following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: |
Gene
Jul 16
|
| Doesn't mean someone won't sue both of you...and collect because of an |
NOYB
Jul 17
|
| (clipped) But how does your auto policy cover your watercraft. My insurance agent
recently pointed out to me that although my homeowners policy specifically
covers a boat up to 14 ft and under 25 hp, that's only while being used in a
body of water totally on my property (my swimming pool, maybe?), my boat
being used on the navigable river in front of my place is no longer covered
as soon as I pull away from my dock. They really want you to spend money to
cover each and every thing you might drive even though you can't drive more
than one vehicle, etc at a time. Furthermore, I would imagine that their
reason to specifically write in the policy that no other person using the
vehicle would be covered is to prevent the lawyers from looking for the
"deepest" pocket to sue in the event of an accident. Tom G. |
Tom
Jul 17
|
| While admittedly, I don't have the policy you are describing, so I can't
read it, I think you are misconstruing the change. What State Farm is
saying I believe is that your friend who borrows your boat is no longer
an insured on the umbrella, so if he borrows it and kills someone, no
insurance for him, at least from State Farm. But that doesn't mean that
you aren't still an insured if someone sues you as the owner of the boat
(they would probably claim you were negligent to loan the boat to someone
so obviously unskilled). You are still an insured. Same with the car. In
California, car owners are liable for injuries caused by their car no
matter what, even if not negligent and not driving, up to $15K for injury
to one person and $30K for injury to multiple persons and $5K for
property damange. Thus if you loan your car to someone who causes an
injury or damage, your auto insurance will cover you up to these limits
(by law). But if the umbrella insurance company made your friend an
insured, they would have to pay up to the limits of the insurance,
because your friend's liablility (assuming he is found to be the
negligent driver)is not limited. So by eliminating your friend as an
insured, they limit their liability. It's really your friend who is
screwed here, not you. Moral of the story, YOU should never borrow
someone else's car or boat unless you are sure YOUR insurace covers you. |
akheel
Jul 17
|
| I think folks here, including you Gene, are forgetting the main point. We
are talking about the umbrella (general liability insurance extending past
the upper limits of the main policy), not the main policy itself on the cars
or boat. If damage is done to the the car or boat by a 3rd party driving
them, the main policy will cover the damages if the 3rd party is not
insured. If however, that 3rd party kills someone while driving the car or
boat *they * will be responsible for all claims against them, not the owner
of the vehicle and actual insured. Why should the insurance company extend *liability* coverage to a 3rd party? |
JimH
Jul 17
|
| See my response to Gene. You are confusing the main policy with the
umbrella policy. |
JimH
Jul 17
|
| Ask State Farm, they had been doing it. It seems the OP's umbrella just became a parasol. |
thunder
Jul 17
|
| That avoids the question. I ask again......why should an insurance company
extend liability coverage to a 3rd party? State Farm corrected a mistake and did the right thing. The insured is
still protected by the umbrella policy. |
JimH
Jul 17
|
| Well, it doesn't surprise me. State Farm took a big hit with Katrina and Rita - they have to make
their money somehow. Oddly, we've been with the same insurance company for - damn, upteen
zillion years (over thirty anyway) and our insurance even went down
last year. Our policy, including umbrella, costs us less now than it
originally did and our net worth, including real estate, boats and
cars is about ten times what it was originally and the policies cover
more than they did originally. Mrs. Wave even has a seperate ultra high value
liability/omission/comission rider because she goes a lot of
different places with students in her car as part of her profession. If I were the original poster, I'd start looking around for a
different agent and insurer - State Farm sucks anyway. Good hands my
ass. And as long as we're on the subject of boats and insurance, don't buy
Progressive boat insurance - talk about a rip off. A friend of my
oldest had Progressive and the boat was whacked in a parking lot. Some
fiberglass damage. Progressive made them take the boat to an auto
body shop that did fiberglass work instead of a boat repair facility. Think about that one for a while. :>) |
Short
Jul 17
|
| Bingo. $206 yearly premium increase for the same coverage. --Vic |
Vic
Jul 17
|
|
As I stated previously, it's just a way for State Farm to get more money
out of the pockets of its policyholders. |
HK
Jul 17
|
| Yeah, but Gene didn't mention the B word, and I didn't want to get
political. --Vic |
Vic
Jul 17
|
| DUH! If you don't like it, find a less expensive policy with another company.
Insurance companies are fighting over each other to find low risk
people to insure. If you are a high risk, I want you to pay more, so I
won't have to. |
Reginald
Jul 17
|
| Why in the world would you want to extend your general liability umbrella
coverage to any one but your family? If you were smart....you would pay zero extra as the changes have no
effect on you. |
JimH
Jul 17
|
|
At a couple of ramps I use, I sometimes have to "manhandle" the boat
onto the trailer properly while someone else handles the tow vehicle.
Or, at launch, I sometimes stay in the boat while someone else backs
down the trailer. Shit happens. I'd want coverage for nasty things
happening at those times, since I can't handle everything at once. Once again, it's just another corporate rip-off being perpetrated on
individuals. It's too bad we don't have tighter control over
corporations in this country. |
HK
Jul 17
|
|
You are still covered as is your boat.same as you always were.
The other guy however is no longer covered by your gl umbrella coverage nor
should he be. Hopefully you get it now. |
JimH
Jul 17
|
|
Well, if the other guy is driving my truck at the launch ramp, he is
using my truck. I'd hate to see that usage excluded. |
HK
Jul 17
|
|
It seems the company wants to insure the driver, not the vehicle, which
makes perfect sense. Let's say you have no tickets or accidents for 11
years, and a low premium to go along with it. Your friend's one of these
morons who has an accident and a serious ticket every 18 months. Why should
your policy cover him? Makes no sense, unless you think the goal of a
business is to lose money. His policy should cover him, no matter whose
vehicle he's driving. |
JoeSpareBedroom
Jul 17
|
| It isn't under the truck policy. He is only excluded under the GL umbrella
policy, as he should. |
JimH
Jul 17
|
| Do you understand what an umbrella policy is? Apparently not. |
JimH
Jul 17
|
| What policies claim to cover has nothing to do with Harry's fantasy about
evil corporations vis-a-vis his needs. I was addressing his scenario. |
JoeSpareBedroom
Jul 17
|
| I'll tell you both what the OP's umbrella coverage is.
It's the one that had a premium increase of $206 for the new term.
Is that clear enough? --Vic |
Vic
Jul 17
|
