Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I would be pissed too! Does your renter's policy specifically state or specify that "uninstalled vehicle accessories" with receipts are not covered and are excluded? If not, then it should be covered as part of the contents in the vehicle under your renter's policy.
I would not dismiss your other avenues so quickly if I were you. Use what options you have first. They many times just want to see how far you will push. I would appeal with ins co first and if that doesn't work I would definitely go to the DOI/IC and see what they have to say or suggest.
Yeah, very frustrating. The thing is, I never read the policy. I just called them up and asked if it would be covered. I'd kept it in a secure storage unit in a storage business. I wanted to be sure it would be covered when I was moving. They said it would be covered "because it hadn't been installed yet."
The wording of the policy says vehicle accessories and parts are not covered, except if they are not "in or upon the vehicle."
Now, my thinking of that would mean not installed or attached. Of course, they are saying that since it was in my vehicle "to be installed" and it was auto parts, that it's not covered.
I think that's ambiguous, and legally, if a contract is ambiguous the courts must rule against the maker of the contract. The idea being that someone who makes an ambiguous contract should not be able to profit from it. So, that's one of the things I'll argue in court.
But, CA law also says that I can rely on what I've been told. It protects consumers who don't read or understand their policies. So, if you call them and ask if you're covered, and they say yes, they then basically waive the parts of the contract that would have otherwise denied coverage. So, consumers can rely on what they tell you. Again, the idea being they don't get to do a bait and switch on you.
I filed my small claims lawsuit today, and I also filed a subpoena to make them produce the recording of the phone call I had with their rep saying I was covered. I've asked them to go back and listen to the recording, and they're delaying, telling me it will take another 7 - 10 business days to find the recording. Note they didn't say there was no recording.
So, then I actually did a little research on the kind of software these companies use to record customer conversations. And you know what? Those recordings are listed right in your customer info page. So, they can see them when they go into my account and could play them with the click of their mouse. So, that's a fat lie, too.
CA law is really tough - on paper - against insurance companies. It even says they're not supposed to force us to sue them to get a fair shake. But, I'm sure it's just a numbers game for them. And the enforcement is obviously nothing they're worried about.
Fortunately, Geico fixed the truck and nothing got stolen that matters in my day to day life. If I was trying to pay for a hotel out of pocket after my building burned down, this would really be affecting my life.
I think what I've learned, is to be sure and build up a decent savings account instead of just relying on renters insurance to pay for my hotel if I get displaced ( I do have a loss of use rider). And just expect to have to sue them any time I have a claim.
I don't think that means to let my insurance drop, as I think they'll eventually be forced to pay, but it means I can't rely on them to take care of me right away, like I should. And after reading reviews on a bunch of insurance companies, it seems to be the same situation with all of them.
Do you have Geico for homeowners or renters insurance? If so, which renter's insurance do you have through them?
I have care insurance through them, but they are only brokers for renter's insurance, and they just offer you several options - they don't actually offer renter's insurance directly.
So, if you have renter's insurance through Geico, which company do you use through them? Have you ever actually had a renter's insurance claim? And it went well?
Geico was great for my comprehensive on the truck, but I'm wondering about renter's insurance experiences. My problem is with the renter's insurance coverage for the items stolen.
we have geico for auto and while geico uses travelers for renters insurance they said we are in a flood zone although there is no evidence we ever flooded even in sandy so they sent us to travelers directly who wrote the policy with no problem.
we have had no renters claims but i have used geico for homeowners over the years when we owned homes and had claims with no issues .
Yeah, very frustrating. The thing is, I never read the policy. I just called them up and asked if it would be covered. I'd kept it in a secure storage unit in a storage business. I wanted to be sure it would be covered when I was moving. They said it would be covered "because it hadn't been installed yet."
The wording of the policy says vehicle accessories and parts are not covered, except if they are not "in or upon the vehicle."
Now, my thinking of that would mean not installed or attached. Of course, they are saying that since it was in my vehicle "to be installed" and it was auto parts, that it's not covered.
I think that's ambiguous, and legally, if a contract is ambiguous the courts must rule against the maker of the contract. The idea being that someone who makes an ambiguous contract should not be able to profit from it. So, that's one of the things I'll argue in court.
But, CA law also says that I can rely on what I've been told. It protects consumers who don't read or understand their policies. So, if you call them and ask if you're covered, and they say yes, they then basically waive the parts of the contract that would have otherwise denied coverage. So, consumers can rely on what they tell you. Again, the idea being they don't get to do a bait and switch on you.
I filed my small claims lawsuit today, and I also filed a subpoena to make them produce the recording of the phone call I had with their rep saying I was covered. I've asked them to go back and listen to the recording, and they're delaying, telling me it will take another 7 - 10 business days to find the recording. Note they didn't say there was no recording.
So, then I actually did a little research on the kind of software these companies use to record customer conversations. And you know what? Those recordings are listed right in your customer info page. So, they can see them when they go into my account and could play them with the click of their mouse. So, that's a fat lie, too.
CA law is really tough - on paper - against insurance companies. It even says they're not supposed to force us to sue them to get a fair shake. But, I'm sure it's just a numbers game for them. And the enforcement is obviously nothing they're worried about.
Fortunately, Geico fixed the truck and nothing got stolen that matters in my day to day life. If I was trying to pay for a hotel out of pocket after my building burned down, this would really be affecting my life.
I think what I've learned, is to be sure and build up a decent savings account instead of just relying on renters insurance to pay for my hotel if I get displaced ( I do have a loss of use rider). And just expect to have to sue them any time I have a claim.
I don't think that means to let my insurance drop, as I think they'll eventually be forced to pay, but it means I can't rely on them to take care of me right away, like I should. And after reading reviews on a bunch of insurance companies, it seems to be the same situation with all of them.
What a racket.
no matter how simple you think an insurance policy is , they can be mine fields .
do you know because of how policies are worded husband and wife cannot drive each others cars unless both are listed on the policies .
strangers can drive your car and be covered but because of policy wording husband and wife are not .
when we first got married i had geico and my wife allstate. we were going to wait until one of us was up and see which was cheaper.well we learned that because of definitions of insured in policies husband and wife have no coverage and are uninsured driving each others cars unless both are on each others policies .
we learned about the pitfalls of renting out a house covered under homeowners and not land lord insurance .
we learned about the dangers of co-op's condo's and hoa coverage . in our hoa we had civilians patrol the grounds at our pocono home .
the question came up that if one of us chases some kids away on snow mobiles and they are hurt what happens if one is injured and the law suit exceeds the co-op or hoa insurance.
well the answer was not surprising , we are all on the hook individually.
but what was surprising was our liability insurance does not cover us . it covers only acts by you or household members not the acts of others .
i called geico who confirmed we would not be covered . they said some insurers sell a rider for the acts of others but they do not .
the list goes on and on where you only learn of the pitfalls after the event happens .
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-14-2018 at 04:18 AM..
here is an example of how the fine print gets you and you never know it . reading your policy would never uncover the issue here of you driving your wife's car if you are covered under another policy elsewhere.
this is why husband and wife must be listed on the same policy to drive each other's cars .
lets see how you would do reading this , before i tell you why .
here is the policy wording. why would husband and wife be uninsured driving each others cars if not on the same policy yet strangers can drive your car ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"LOSSES WE WILL PAY FOR YOU UNDER SECTION I
Under Section I, we will pay damages which an insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of: bodily injury, sustained by a person, and; damage to or destruction of property, arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the owned auto or a non-owned auto. We will defend any suit for damages payable under the terms of this policy. We may investigate and settle any claim or suit."
Preceding the recitation of covered losses, the policy states that the words which are italicized in Section I are defined as set forth in the definitions section which follows. The definition of "insured" sends the reader to the "PERSONS INSURED" section, which includes "you" as an "insured" for both owned and non-owned autos. The other pertinent definitions are:
"5. 'Non-owned auto' means an automobile or trailer not owned by or furnished for the regular use of either you or a relative, other than a temporary substitute auto.
"6. 'Owned auto' means:
(a) a vehicle described in this policy for which a premium charge is shown for these coverages; a trailer owned by you; a private passenger, farm or utility auto, ownership of which you acquire during the policy period or for which you enter into a lease during the policy period for six months or more, if
(i) it replaces an owned auto as defined in (a) above; or
(ii) we insure all private passenger, farm and utility autos owned or leased by you on the date of the acquisition, and you ask us to add it to the policy no more than 30 days later;
(d) a temporary substitute auto.
"8. 'Relative' means a person related to you who resides in your household.
"9. 'Temporary substitute auto' means an automobile or trailer, not owned by you, temporarily used with the permission of the owner. This vehicle must be used as a substitute for the owned auto or trailer when withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing, loss or destruction.
"14. 'You' means the policyholder named in the declarations and his or her spouse if a resident of the same household."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-14-2018 at 04:24 AM..
here is the gotta in the above policy as to why husband and wife are uninsured driving each others cars if not listed on the policy and each have a different company .
this was an actual case where courts upheld the policy wording as being grounds not to pay a claim .
in this case tim ,the husband got in a bad accident using his wife's car . the insurer refused to cover tim since he was not on his wife's policy but had his own car and policy .
case excerpts:
Appellants do not dispute that, at the time of the accident, Wendy was Tim's spouse and that the two resided in the same household. Therefore, by the clear language of the policy, Wendy fit within the definitions of both "you" and "relative." Therefore, Wendy's Toyota was an automobile owned by "either you or a relative," which by policy definition cannot be a "nonowned auto" for Tim. The Hanzliks conceded this point at oral argument.
The Hanzliks argue that Tim's Honda was "withdrawn from normal use because of its breakdown, repair, servicing" and, therefore, Wendy's Toyota was being used by Tim as a "temporary substitute auto," which is an "owned auto" by policy definition. However, whether Tim's car was withdrawn from use is of no consequence, because the policy definition of "temporary substitute auto" contains the specific requirement that the automobile not be owned by "you," i.e., an automobile owned by either Tim or his resident spouse does not qualify. Wendy was married to Tim; Wendy lived with Tim; Wendy owned the Toyota; the Toyota was "owned by you"; therefore, the Toyota was not a "temporary substitute auto." None of the other definitions of an "owned auto" applied to the Toyota.
I am not following. You're not giving a clear scenario for me to follow. I need a story from beginning to end.
But, trying to understand the gist of what you're saying, is that one should never assume anyone else is on your policy. That seems obvious to me.
But, I'm wondering why a husband and wife would own separate cars that aren't in each other's names? And if they aren't, then why would they assume that each other would be covered?
I mean, if you only have your car in your name, and your insurance policy is only in your name, why would you assume anyone else would be on the coverage? When your wife has a car, only in her name, and insurance on that vehicle only in her name?
I dunno, but that's seems more obvious to me. Kind of like you can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'm just guessing there is some reason why the husband and wife have things separate. There would be some benefit in doing so. So, if you're trying to get out of some taxes or whatever, by keeping things separate, but then want to be thought of as one unit under other circumstances, then that seems fishy to me.
we can loan our cars to anyone and they are covered driving our cars .our policies allow others to drive our cars and we can drive substitute auto's and be covered .
look at the example of when my wife and i got married . i had geico ,she had allstate . we just got married , we are going to have different companies . we were going to see who's was cheaper at the next renewal and go on one policy . .
when my car went in for service i drove hers . why not ? even strangers can drive your car and be covered . i can loan my car to anyone i like with few exceptions .
little did i know that since i am not on her allstate policy at this point that i am actually un-insured driving her car on technical reasons not because i am someone not on her policy . .
some people have company cars insured by the company they work for . they may drive a spouses car one day as a temporary auto and would have the same un-insured problem.
the confusion comes from the fact not everyone has to be on your policy to drive your car. anyone can drive your car and be covered except a spouse it seems , and that is not apparent from reading the policy . it comes from interpretation of definitions and that was my point .
reading the policies do not give you the whole story . a lot of times it is like a puzzle you or courts have to solve . .
in this case this line created the problem , where it defines the owner of your car as "you or your spouse " even when your spouse does not own it .
that makes it not a non-owned auto like a stranger would be considered but technically it is an owned auto to the spouse who does not own it by definition in the policy . .
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-15-2018 at 02:04 AM..
we can loan our cars to anyone and they are covered driving our cars .our policies allow others to drive our cars and we can drive substitute auto's and be covered .
look at the example of when my wife and i got married . i had geico ,she had allstate . we just got married , we are going to have different companies . we were going to see who's was cheaper at the next renewal and go on one policy . .
when my car went in for service i drove hers . why not ? even strangers can drive your car and be covered . i can loan my car to anyone i like with few exceptions .
little did i know that since i am not on her allstate policy at this point that i am actually un-insured driving her car on technical reasons not because i am someone not on her policy . .
some people have company cars insured by the company they work for . they may drive a spouses car one day as a temporary auto and would have the same un-insured problem.
the confusion comes from the fact not everyone has to be on your policy to drive your car. anyone can drive your car and be covered except a spouse it seems , and that is not apparent from reading the policy . it comes from interpretation of definitions and that was my point .
reading the policies do not give you the whole story . a lot of times it is like a puzzle you or courts have to solve . .
in this case this line created the problem , where it defines the owner of your car as "you or your spouse " even when your spouse does not own it .
that makes it not a non-owned auto like a stranger would be considered but technically it is an owned auto to the spouse who does not own it by definition in the policy . .
Yeah, I'd take that to court. When a clause/contract is ambiguous, the courts should rule against the maker of the contract - the reason being so that they can't profit by writing ambiguous terms they can say mean one thing or another, for their own benefit.
we can loan our cars to anyone and they are covered driving our cars .our policies allow others to drive our cars and we can drive substitute auto's and be covered .
look at the example of when my wife and i got married . i had geico ,she had allstate . we just got married , we are going to have different companies . we were going to see who's was cheaper at the next renewal and go on one policy . .
when my car went in for service i drove hers . why not ? even strangers can drive your car and be covered . i can loan my car to anyone i like with few exceptions .
little did i know that since i am not on her allstate policy at this point that i am actually un-insured driving her car on technical reasons not because i am someone not on her policy . .
some people have company cars insured by the company they work for . they may drive a spouses car one day as a temporary auto and would have the same un-insured problem.
the confusion comes from the fact not everyone has to be on your policy to drive your car. anyone can drive your car and be covered except a spouse it seems , and that is not apparent from reading the policy . it comes from interpretation of definitions and that was my point .
reading the policies do not give you the whole story . a lot of times it is like a puzzle you or courts have to solve . .
in this case this line created the problem , where it defines the owner of your car as "you or your spouse " even when your spouse does not own it .
that makes it not a non-owned auto like a stranger would be considered but technically it is an owned auto to the spouse who does not own it by definition in the policy . .
This has gotten way off topic but because of the confusion and misunderstandings in your posts, mathjak, I decided to clarify some of it here for you:
Auto insurance has been like this since before I can remember (over 40+ years for sure). You could have driven your wifes car before you were married and be covered but it still would have been questionable if you had been living together at that time. Once you are a member of the same household (and now related) then you need to be listed on each others vehicle insurance or you will not be covered.
Your situation was rather unique because 1) both of you had different ins companies and 2) you had just gotten married and 3) you (or she) happened to drive the other's vehicle and had an accident in the few months before you switched ins at your next renewals. (Those odds are rather slim). But even still, once married "usually" both spouses will go with the same company (or at least notify their agents of their marriage right away) in order to get multiple vehicle discounts, married rates (if applicable), etc plus it would have been caught by your ins agent at that time. But it is also your responsibility once you get married to notify your insurance agent whether you are waiting to switch ins at renewal or not. So, unless both of you had notified each of your insurance companies once you got married then neither insurance company would have known to ask you or tell you that neither of you would be covered on each others vehicles.
And it IS because you were not listed as a driver on her policy (just as she wasn't listed on yours) now that you were married. Let's say that one of you has a bad driving record and that person is not listed as an insured driver on the other person's vehicle and you live in the same household and are related, then the ins co is not getting the risk covered as they need to for that person with the bad driving record. The reason is that the risk is greater that someone who is related to you and living in the same household would end up driving your vehicle more frequently than someone non-related and not living in your household who might borrow your vehicle once in a blue moon.
Auto insurance goes by "household". The same applies to any children living at home. If (and once) they become of driving age if you don't list them as a driver then they will not be covered. Most, if not all, ins companies will want any licensed driver in your household either listed as a driver on your vehicles OR excluded via a specific waiver perhaps because they have a bad driving record and the premiums would be sky high and you are not allowing them to drive your insured vehicles until their record improves.
But again, this got way off topic so if this doesn't make sense then feel free to PM me, if need be.
Yeah, I'd take that to court. When a clause/contract is ambiguous, the courts should rule against the maker of the contract - the reason being so that they can't profit by writing ambiguous terms they can say mean one thing or another, for their own benefit.
In this case yes it did go to court. The court found the contract stands and the wording was fine. Plaintiff lost.
The court ruled that the wording above was quite specific in that the wording was quite clear and it was a matter of just understanding the definitions.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-16-2018 at 01:18 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
