TexasCHLforum.com

Sorry, this is a rather long post. But, it's insurance info I didn't know before and thought I'd pass it along.

My daughter was involved in an automobile accident the first part of November 2012.
The other driver was at-fault (turned left into oncoming traffic). Injury accident so
Police reports etc, and witnesses to verify who was at fault. Both cars were totaled.
The at-fault driver was taken via ambulance to ER for neck injuries. My daughter was
OK (slight neck soreness the following day but ck’d by Dr and she’s fine).
My daughter had no passengers. The at-fault driver (a woman) had one passenger,
her husband. He was not injured. The drivers insurance info etc was exchanged.
Cars were towed and insurance companies notified.
Here’s the rub: The at-fault drivers insurance company gave us the run around for 2
weeks. Their adjusters never went to wrecker/storage yard to view either car. Would
not answer calls etc. And yes, I had an attorney handling this for us. He got nowhere.
Finally, the claim was denied. Why? Because the policy was “Exclusionary”. Even
though the at-fault driver admitted she was at fault, her husband thought he had full coverage,
he did not. The fine print insured ONLY him IF he was actually driving the car. Under
current Texas law (over seen by Tx Insurance Board… really a self-regulated industry) this
practice is legal. Do most reputable insurers issue these type policies? No. These policies are
issued by the folks promising the very lowest rates, the companies that will issue policies
for a month (so you can get an inspection or plates etc). Frustrating experience to say the least.
Most people take for granted if they give family or friends permission to drive their vehicles
that their insurance covers the driver. My policies do that exactly. Anyway, IF you have purchased
a low rate- discount-cheap insurance policy….. you may want to check the fine print.
Outcome: I carried UM/UIM coverage, so MY insurance company is picking up the tab for
our car, rentals, towing, storage etc. The at-fault driver? Nothing. Her insurance company
denied BOTH claims. They now have a 2012 car that is totaled. Ambulance & ER bills to pay,
and my insurance company will surely go after them to recoup their financial loss.
Hope this helps someone.

I really wish we had no fault insurance. Then we could insure ourselves and be done with it. But I guess the era of personal responsability is long gone...

Syntyr wrote:

I really wish we had no fault insurance. Then we could insure ourselves and be done with it. But I guess the era of personal responsability is long gone...

No fault is the very OPPOSITE of personal responsibility. If you hit my car, why should my insurance pay? Why should my rates go up because someone else did something stupid?

Rates generally go UP in no fault states because no one is now accountable for their behavior.

Thanks for the heads-up Gemini...
A good example why UM/UIM coverage is a must for me.

Glad nobody was seriously injured.

RoyGBiv wrote:UM/UIM

twice my mother was hit by a UIM, and it was the UIM's fault.
the cars she was driving were mine, and I do keep UIM/UM for that reason as well.
It is well worth it, for the small cost, vs the cost of replacing 2 cars!

Good information.

I was involved last week in a collision, and the at-fault driver has insurance that I have never heard of... (Neither has my Insurance adjuster!) I am worried that I will end up under UIM as well. My rates are likely to go up if it is filed as UIM because of the claim, not because of the fault... SMH

GWE Chally wrote:My rates are likely to go up if it is filed as UIM because of the claim, not because of the fault.

Mine didn't go up with my mom was hit twice, that is why you pay UIM, as another form of insurance.
Hopefully your insurance doesn't penalize you for their negligence

If the insurance company says the policy doesn't cover her, I would talk with the local DA (an elected official) and ask him to prosecute her for not having financial responsibility.

I would talk to my lawyer about suing the driver and requesting summary judgement because she was driving without insurance. I shouldn't need to mention that judges run for reelection too in Texas.

GWE Chally wrote:Good information.

I was involved last week in a collision, and the at-fault driver has insurance that I have never heard of... (Neither has my Insurance adjuster!) I am worried that I will end up under UIM as well. My rates are likely to go up if it is filed as UIM because of the claim, not because of the fault... SMH

This was our problem too. Neither my Ins Co. or yours truly had ever heard of the at-fault drivers Ins Co.
I'll hate a rate increase

smoothoperator wrote:If the insurance company says the policy doesn't cover her, I would talk with the local DA (an elected official) and ask him to prosecute her for not having financial responsibility.

I would talk to my lawyer about suing the driver and requesting summary judgement because she was driving without insurance. I shouldn't need to mention that judges run for reelection too in Texas.

I'd probably have to have the responding LEO write her a "after the fact" ticket. (won't happen). As far as suing, I'm leaving that to
my Insurance Co. I'm sure they will. Judgement, garnish wages etc. It's been a royal pain from day 1. But, I almost feel kind of sorry
for the at-fault lady. Why? Because she and her husband both thought they had full coverage. I personally believe the agents selling
these policies are intentionally misleading the poor souls buying them. Either by unknowingly or intentionally hiding the "fine exclusion print".
If enough people reported this type of abuse, maybe a class action suit would be the way to go. But, until the current law is changed that allows
the "exclusion clause", I don't think a class action suit would hold water UNLESS it could be proved that the agents were intentionally, on a regular basis
misleading customers regarding coverage as a common practice.

gemini wrote:

smoothoperator wrote:If the insurance company says the policy doesn't cover her, I would talk with the local DA (an elected official) and ask him to prosecute her for not having financial responsibility.

I would talk to my lawyer about suing the driver and requesting summary judgement because she was driving without insurance. I shouldn't need to mention that judges run for reelection too in Texas.

I'd probably have to have the responding LEO write her a "after the fact" ticket. (won't happen). As far as suing, I'm leaving that to
my Insurance Co. I'm sure they will. Judgement, garnish wages etc. It's been a royal pain from day 1. But, I almost feel kind of sorry
for the at-fault lady. Why? Because she and her husband both thought they had full coverage. I personally believe the agents selling
these policies are intentionally misleading the poor souls buying them. Either by unknowingly or intentionally hiding the "fine exclusion print".
If enough people reported this type of abuse, maybe a class action suit would be the way to go. But, until the current law is changed that allows
the "exclusion clause", I don't think a class action suit would hold water UNLESS it could be proved that the agents were intentionally, on a regular basis
misleading customers regarding coverage as a common practice.

As much as I don't like to lean on government for stuff I should know myself (such as the coverages and exclusions of my insurance policies), reality is that 50% of people are of below-median intelligence.
The Texas Department of Insurance should be responsible for stopping this practice or, at minimum, requiring full disclosure. Remember the last time you took out a mortgage? How many "I have been informed of this regulation" forms did you have to sign.? Some basic consumer protection is warranted here. IMO, YMMV

Jumping Frog wrote:

Syntyr wrote:

I really wish we had no fault insurance. Then we could insure ourselves and be done with it. But I guess the era of personal responsability is long gone...

No fault is the very OPPOSITE of personal responsibility. If you hit my car, why should my insurance pay? Why should my rates go up because someone else did something stupid?

Rates generally go UP in no fault states because no one is now accountable for their behavior.

Beacuse you'd only carry one policy, yours. Not one for you, one for the other guy and one for the dude who doesnt have anything. Your rates would go down and we'd all save money, but the insurers would lose.

Exclusions are quite common. Take teenage son who gets in say five wrecks. Parents insurance skyrockets. They get tired of it and make son get his own policy. Because son is still a resident of the household, he is a likely driver, so he ends up getting excluded on parents policy so parents aren't hit with enormous rates.

The way insurance works is anything not specifically excluded is covered.

Chris wrote:Exclusions are quite common. Take teenage son who gets in say five wrecks. Parents insurance skyrockets. They get tired of it and make son get his own policy. Because son is still a resident of the household, he is a likely driver, so he ends up getting excluded on parents policy so parents aren't hit with enormous rates.

The way insurance works is anything not specifically excluded is covered.

I certainly understand the above scenario. That is the reason the Insurance Co's won't push to have the law changed.
The Tx Board of Ins is all bark no bite. However, I believe folks are being told they have full coverage...... meaning the
customer understands it's a policy that fully covers him, his immediate family, anyone he might give permission
to drive his car etc "FULL COVERAGE"....... but the real truth is the full coverage only covers the specific customer and only in a specific
set of circumstances or specific instance etc "full coverage that ONLY applies to you"...
The companies pushing these type policies are the $20-35 per month we insure anybody cheap scamsters. Not everyone
buying these policies is an insurance guru who knows the "tricks of the trade". Maybe just common folks who think
being sold a policy that is "full coverage" really does mean full coverage. Maybe a big red rubber stamp similar to the
notice on a dealers used car (SOLD AS IS, NO WARRANTY) should be applied on any auto policy sold as FULL COVERAGE
if that policy contains exclusions; like, (FULL COVERAGE, BUT NOT REALLY. Go back and read the tiny fine print).
I personally have insurance on 5 cars/trucks and 1 motorcycle. None of my policies have any exclusions pertaining to
who I allow to drive my cars/trucks. (No one drives the bike but me...... no matter what kind of policy). I've run the
exclusion excuse by a bunch of friends and none of them has ever even heard of such a thing on their policies. But, none
of my friends buy insurance from that segment of the insurance industry.

It's hard to imagine people being so ignorant of the world that they haven't figured out that, as The Old Rancher often taught, "the cheapest oats have already been run through the horse."

Insurance rates vary, of course, and insurance companies, naturally enough, prefer to insure the safest drivers for the highest rates they can, an impulse thwarted by competition. But a rate significantly below what others are charging for the same risk profile is suspect, unless you are confident you are in the preferred class of drivers, or a member of USAA, of course.

Insurance policies are not uniform, fungible, alike. A few companies still have agents but for the most part, competition has forced them to go to sales people, whose job it is to sell you on buying, as differentiated from the independent agent which is many respects was YOUR agent, not the company's.

If Texas requires drivers to carry liability insurance, and this driver did not, then the penalties ought to be imposed. They can sue their company, or agent, as the case may be for misrepresenting the coverages, if indeed that is what happened.