Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
How so? I posted my thoughts and how I thought the claim would be handled based on my experience handling these actual claims. A current adjuster comes in and says how they would likely handle the claim, which is similar to what I was saying. There's nothing false about that information.
You on the other hand break out an online dictionary reply and want to discuss my credibility. To top it all off your "call and claims department" line is hilarious. FKA works in claims and JUST TOLD YOU that this could well be a comprehensive claim.
Any chance you're able to provide evidence of flying deer? Surely you can explain why we should believe that a deer would be considered a flying object?
|
As pointed out he is likely a property adjuster and isn't even going anywhere near policy wordings or SPF#1. Also I was joking about the summer student crack and apologize if you took it as arrogant I just found it surprising that it seemed you were able to give people coverage arbitrariliy out of good will under comprehensive when it has always been covered under collision. These things don't vary from company to company as some are saying. These are standard wordings right out of the SPF#1.