06-14-2013, 09:40 AM
|
#61
|
|
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
|
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?
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 09:40 AM
|
#62
|
|
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
|
Double post.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 09:44 AM
|
#63
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
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.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 10:00 AM
|
#64
|
|
Playboy Mansion Poolboy
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 10:07 AM
|
#65
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Slava For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 10:19 AM
|
#66
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Calgary
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 10:40 AM
|
#67
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
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.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 10:47 AM
|
#68
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 10:52 AM
|
#69
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
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?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 11:21 AM
|
#70
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Calgary, Alberta
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 11:39 AM
|
#71
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: May 2006
Location: @HOOT250
|
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.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by henriksedin33
Not at all, as I've said, I would rather start with LA over any of the other WC playoff teams. Bunch of underachievers who look good on paper but don't even deserve to be in the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to HOOT For This Useful Post:
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 11:47 AM
|
#72
|
|
First Line Centre
|
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......
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 01:38 PM
|
#73
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
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?
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Last edited by undercoverbrother; 06-14-2013 at 01:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 02:02 PM
|
#74
|
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
I said nothing in the OP about replacement so I'm not sure why UCB is even arguing that...
|
|
|
|
|
06-14-2013, 02:06 PM
|
#75
|
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
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
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:42 PM.
|
|
