Insurance help question - Page 4 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

ken0042 · 06-14-2013, 09:40 AM

Isn't that the basics of how insurance works- especially car insurance?

If my driving causes property damage, and I am found to be at fault, why wouldn't I have to pay? Or why wouldn't my insurance have to pay for my damages?

ken0042 · 06-14-2013, 09:40 AM

Double post.

undercoverbrother · 06-14-2013, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

Isn't that the basics of how insurance works- especially car insurance?

If my driving causes property damage, and I am found to be at fault, why wouldn't I have to pay? Or why wouldn't my insurance have to pay for my damages?

I didn't say they don't need to pay. I said they don't need to pay for the replacement of the property. In insurance terms "replacement" is specific.

ken0042 · 06-14-2013, 10:00 AM

So basically what you are saying is if the $1000 item has damages that can be repaired for $200- that's all they would pay. But if the item is not repairable (either through economics or total destruction) then they would need to pay to replace it. Right?

Slava · 06-14-2013, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

So basically what you are saying is if the $1000 item has damages that can be repaired for $200- that's all they would pay. But if the item is not repairable (either through economics or total destruction) then they would need to pay to replace it. Right?

Well the easiest way to think about it is a car. If you have a brand new Honda Civic and its worth $25k (just to pick a number) and it has to be replaced its worth $25k. If its two years old with 150k kms though its worth say $15k. The guy doing the damages is liable for the $15k here, not the $25k.

Basically he has to put you back in the same position as you were before. A homeowners policy is different though. If my house burns down and my TV melts, the policy pays for me to get a replacement TV; it makes no difference that my TV was 5 years old. If I had a 42" TV then I get a 42" TV.

FlamesKickAss · 06-14-2013, 10:19 AM

Also in the OP it says his adjuster but it was actually the third party's adjuster........ Assuming Puckluck has no collision coverage on his own vehicle to be dealing direct or he would have to put through home and auto and then they would subrogate.

undercoverbrother · 06-14-2013, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

Basically he has to put you back in the same position as you were before. A homeowners policy is different though. If my house burns down and my TV melts, the policy pays for me to get a replacement TV; it makes no difference that my TV was 5 years old. If I had a 42" TV then I get a 42" TV.

This is correct, but if your house burns down because of the negligence of another party, that negligent party is not responsible for the replacement of that that TV.

Slava · 06-14-2013, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

This is correct, but if your house burns down because of the negligence of another party, that negligent party is not responsible for the replacement of that that TV.

I have no idea why you insist on making these really broad, general examples more complex than they need to be. Of course there are all kinds of factors that might change the outcome of a specific situation.

undercoverbrother · 06-14-2013, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slava

I have no idea why you insist on making these really broad, general examples more complex than they need to be. Of course there are all kinds of factors that might change the outcome of a specific situation.

It is not a complex concept. It is a simple concept central to insurance.

A negligenty party is not responsible for the replacement of the property they damaged. The negligent party is only responsible for the value of the item damages. To use your example, the negligent party would only be responsible for the value of a 5 yr old 42' TV.

Do you disagree?

Slava · 06-14-2013, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It is not a complex concept. It is a simple concept central to insurance.

A negligenty party is not responsible for the replacement of the property they damaged. The negligent party is only responsible for the value of the item damages. To use your example, the negligent party would only be responsible for the value of a 5 yr old 42' TV.

Do you disagree?

Its not that I disagree. You just still want to argue the original point here, and I'm not getting into that with you.

HOOT · 06-14-2013, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlamesKickAss

Also in the OP it says his adjuster but it was actually the third party's adjuster........

Where does he say that? The only thing I read is "the adjuster" which is what made UCB's reply lazy. Working in insurance he should have clarified that instead of just saying no, when it clearly would have been covered one way or another.

UCB is trying to save himself with the insurance term of replacement but he should know with 20 years of experience that clients don't exactly understand the difference between replacement or ACV and the OP was clearly using replacement as a broad term for replacement hoping for a working unit again (new, used or fixed). It was the wrong advice from the start and the right decision by the third parties insurance was made.

macker · 06-14-2013, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

All the above are correct. Vehicles insurance does not cover household contents. Only the vehicle and what would be considered normal to keep in a vehilce (cd's, GPS, etc...) everything else under home insurance.

The auto policy would cover 1 CD provided your carry comprehensive coverage and subject to your deductible. If you have a box of 20-30 cd's and a ghetto blaster etc.these items would have to be claimed under your home insurance. Good thing that most people burn their own worthless CD's and plug in their MP3 players so that they aren't driving around with a bunch of CD's to lure thief's. Bunch of Tramps......

undercoverbrother · 06-14-2013, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOOT

Where does he say that? The only thing I read is "the adjuster" which is what made UCB's reply lazy. Working in insurance he should have clarified that instead of just saying no, when it clearly would have been covered one way or another.

UCB is trying to save himself with the insurance term of replacement but he should know with 20 years of experience that clients don't exactly understand the difference between replacement or ACV and the OP was clearly using replacement as a broad term for replacement hoping for a working unit again (new, used or fixed). It was the wrong advice from the start and the right decision by the third parties insurance was made.

This post is completely wrong:

Quote:

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.

Do you disagree?

puckluck2 · 06-14-2013, 02:02 PM

I said nothing in the OP about replacement so I'm not sure why UCB is even arguing that...

undercoverbrother · 06-14-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by puckluck2

I said nothing in the OP about replacement so I'm not sure why UCB is even arguing that...

You should read this case, it might be of use to you

http://www.diminishedvaluescanada.co...mber_234304731