Posts
This past week an item showed up on the internet about an insurance company denying coverage on a non recovered stolen car because the vehicle's history included previously being a rental car.
According to the author, Sandra Lee of Evangelical Ministries, the policy has exclusion for theft coverage if “the ignition wire was not altered.” Although the vehicle had not been recovered to establish whether or not the wiring was compromised, the insurer denied coverage stating that as a rental car it would have “multiple drivers handling the keys.” Therefore someone "could" have pocketed a key and traced its wereab0uts? I don't know about you but it certainly looks like a big stretch to me.
As more than a curiosity I requested the name of the insurance company from the author. In so doing I stated that although I expected that the company would be a substandard, it would not greatly surprise me to find it a well known insurer either. The reply?
“The insurance company was United Equitable of Skokie, IL and the brokers who accept payment on their behalf is Great Northern Insurance of Chicago, others have contacted me about United Equitable saying they waited 90 days for claims to be settled, the claims manager made offers of 50% car value then tried to lower the price and hung the phone up on them. The story just goes on. They don't even respond to the Department of Insurance when a complaint is filed.”
This activity only scratches the surface of insurance company deceit. In the future other activities will be the subject of this blog.
This response also offers confirmation why a vehicle that was previously a rental unit is worth less money than one that never was a rental in the used car market.
Ms. Lee covers the entire story and the consequences to the vehicle owner quite nicely at:
Illinois Auto Insurance Company Leaves Minister With $20,000.00 Debt.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ken:
ReplyDeleteThe insured needs an attorney who specializes in the breach of good faith duties under the policy (better known as "bad faith"). I would urge him to contact Tom Dixon an Arizona lawyer
(602-258-8400) who I think has some Chicago connections. This should be a "walk in the park" case and not only will the vehicle get paid for but a hefty punitive settlement could be in the wind.
The insurance company knows that over 4 million
rental cars a year get sold into the private marketplace. They simply can't exclude coverage on these units, no way, no how. They could, in my opinion, make a case for a slightly lower value of the vehicle based on the fact it had been a rental. Keep in mind that the insurance company surely did not ask the question "was the car you are buying ever a rental" on the insurance application.
To negate a claim using the "multiple key" factor is a farce. Make sure they get good legal counsel and start with Tom Dixon. These cases are taken on "contingent" and having a church as a client is the perfect situation.
Bob Isham
New Image Paint & Body