Insurance help question

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Are you drunk?

I read the OP as being "his adjuster". If it is his adjuster the machine would no be covered by his auto policy.


What is your experience?

You are asking me if I'm drunk when you are the one who couldn't even read the first post properly? Plus you should know the question for me is 'Are you high?'

Obviously experience isn't a factor because I have about half as much as you and understood the question but even if you misread the post your answer shouldn't have just been "no it wouldn't have been covered", that is just lazy and wrong!

[Raekwon]

The third party in this case will cover the costs but at "Actual Cash Value" If you go through your home insurance they will do "Replacement Cost" and then subrogate to the third parties insurance. How that affects your home insurance I don't know.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by HOOT

You are asking me if I'm drunk when you are the one who couldn't even read the first post properly? Plus you should know the question for me is 'Are you high?'

Obviously experience isn't a factor because I have about half as much as you and understood the question but even if you misread the post your answer shouldn't have just been "no it wouldn't have been covered", that is just lazy and wrong!

No you read the question differently, you should know that insurance can be grey.

I read the OP as his "SPF No 1 adjuster".

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

No you read the question differently, you should know that insurance can be grey.

I read the OP as his "SPF No 1 adjuster".

You straight up told him he wouldn't be covered, you didn't clarify the question, or give him an example of how it would be, it's okay to admit you are wrong now and then.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by HOOT

You straight up told him he wouldn't be covered, you didn't clarify the question, or give him an example of how it would be, it's okay to admit you are wrong now and then.

I might have been wrong on how I read his post, but my response was correct, as I read the post.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I might have been wrong on how I read his post, but my response was correct, as I read the post.

Oh boy...you must be an adjuster with an answer like that!

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Oh boy...you must be an adjuster with an answer like that!

nope.

But your response makes it seem like that is a bad thing. Is it?


BTW, and this is not said with malice, can you go back to your Pot thread and give examples of the gov't changing their studies?

[FlamesKickAss]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

My vehicle was damaged by a drunk driver and he hit it so hard that a machine valued at around $1000 toppled over and is now broken and not usable. Finally got a hold of the adjuster and she told me I have to file a home insurance claim for that machine and they won't cover it. My vehicle was parked on the street, is she being completely honest with me? Shouldn't they have to cover it?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

If the equipment was not a part of the vehicle, ie: bolted to the truck, then no.

You vehicle insurance covers the vehicle, not the contents of the vehicle. Because the equipment was not bolted, it is not part of the truck. This can get a bit different when dealing with large equipment, but I assume such is not the case for you.

Your adjuster is correct.

He answered this question which is the correct answer...

Your home insurance would subrogate.

In my experience in auto claims the only thing that would be covered is the CD in the cd player at the time if it was stolen. I have denied GPS units through auto...

Edit: Also it is listed under SPF1 exclusions under section C. 1 (f)

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

BTW, and this is not said with malice, can you go back to your Pot thread and give examples of the gov't changing their studies?

Just waiting for you to ask in this thread...

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Just waiting for you to ask in this thread...

With an answer like that you must be a 46 year old divorced woman..

[Canehdianman]

Boo, this thread exploded over lunch.

I was hoping to have something to do for the rest of the afternoon...

[puckluck2]

Thanks for all the replies. My adjuster called me back and notified me she looked into it and they now are covering it.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Thanks for all the replies. My adjuster called me back and notified me she looked into it and they now are covering it.

Wait, I thought undercoverbrother and all his infinite wisdom of insurance coverage said it would not be covered?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Mind blown.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Slava

There is some bad advice here, potentially. Do you have the insurance and information for the guy who hit your vehicle? His insurance will likely cover this, or at least you could make the argument that it should. His coverage is for liability and property damage. If the item was damaged as a result of his negligence then that is part of your claim against him.

Its true that for your own auto policy this would not be covered, but I'm not sure that is what you're asking here?

Thanks Slava, this is what I thought but the adjuster at first was pretty adamant they wouldn't be covering. I told her I would do everything in my power even if it ends up costing me more than the replacement value of the machine for them to be responsible. 2 hours later she called me back and told me they are paying for it. It just seemed so wrong that their client who was drunk and damaged my vehicle would not make them liable for my total losses.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Wait, I thought undercoverbrother and all his infinite wisdom of insurance coverage said it would not be covered?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Mind blown.

It looks like her got lucky or got someone without much experience.


FYI, if you read back I am not the only one with that position.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It looks like her got lucky or got someone without much experience.


FYI, if you read back I am not the only one with that position.

No, but you were the one arguing most vehemently and throwing around shots like 'I can see why you don't work there anymore' and 'its a fact that [I] don't know what I'm talking about.'

Glad to hear that he'll get his item covered, as he should.

[KelVarnsen]

This thread is lot more fun than I thought it would be.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, but you were the one arguing most vehemently and throwing around shots like 'I can see why you don't work there anymore' and 'its a fact that [I] don't know what I'm talking about.'

Glad to hear that he'll get his item covered, as he should.

First I apologize if I offended you.

Second, I am happy to hear that Puckluck2 has been looked after. Insurer's cover/pay claims for a number of reasons. The resolution of puckluck2 situation does not change that fact that this is incorrect:

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Slava's point is that if puckluck2's car was hit by someone whom he has the insurance information for, it would be that individual's insurance that would be paying for the replacement of the $1000 machine.

The tortfeasor is not required to pay for the replacement of property damaged as a result of their negligence.

[Canehdianman]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

...
The tortfeasor is not required to pay for the replacement of property damaged as a result of their negligence.

Are you under the impression that this is still an argument?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Canehdianman

Are you under the impression that this is still an argument?

I am under the impression that you think that if I damage your property that you believe I am legally obligated to replace that property, and that is incorrect.