Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 10:26:52 -0500
Reply-To: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Subject: Re: Legendary Tardis-Classic Car insurance for Westies?
In-Reply-To: <6bc66ccf0908030630l672cce8gebcdb4b04118a8ba@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Don,
You are pretty much on target here. Insurance companies are by their
very nature organized and designed to make money off of managing risk -
and the nano-second the numbers show that you, the so called "customer"
,are not going to be productive and lucrative and profitable for their
purposes you get axed in one way or another. And - dare I say it - this
same thing parallels the health insurance debate that is going on
nationally right now. When the numbers show a "client" moves into the
"no-profit zone" the insurance companies dump you out - one way or
another. Raise the rates so high you can't pay, or refuse you coverage
due to "prior" conditions, and the list goes on. Bottom line: Risk
management for the Corporate bottom line profits. The health insurance
thing and the automobile insurance thing works the same way - as each
gets older - you - and your car - the less protection you are able to
get because the risk to corporate profits increases - and
numerically/statistically there comes a point where insurance companies
are better rid of you because you are about to cost them money - and
they are not going to put up with that. From a health insurance
standpoint, this is what pees me off about insurance companies. They
will milk you for profits when you are young, in your prime, and not
likely to need any serious medical care, then when you need them they
aren't there - at least for the most part. This is why I support a
national health insurance. All the insurance companies blow a lot of
smoke about socialized medicine as a scare tactic to prevent this from
happening, but we already have a partial one in place that has been
operational for 43 years. It's called medicare - and it works pretty
good. But you have to be age 65 to qualify. And by the way - Medicare is
note free insurance - everyone on it pays a monthly insurance premium of
a bit over $100/month taken right out of retirement checks by the
treasury department - and that is after paying into medicare during a
lifetime of work.. If national budgets were managed well, that coverage
could be extended to cover everyone and it would force insurance
companies to be one heck of a lot more competitive, driving the prices
down. As for auto insurance - not sure what could be done there. But
there are steps one could take. Liability insurance - ya gotta have it.
Takes care of the other fellow if you screw up, or a court deems you
have screwed up - whether you did in fact or not. Then there is the
protection of your own vehicle against loss. As our vehicles age - same
as our bodies - and the insurance companies see less and less value in
our vehicles or our bodies - it becomes more and more a matter of self
reliance. You cannot at that point contract with a company to assume
your risk. Once you get my age (70) it's a bit late to set up special
savings or IRA's to cover your risks over time, but if you are young or
even have children you can set things up for them - and that money will
be there to cover such things as vehicle liability, comprehensive and
loss, as well as health issues. . But to try and buy insurance to cover
such major items as complete vehicle loss or some major health break -
it's not going to happen if you and your vehicle have aged to the point
of being outside the profit envelope of the insurance companies
actuarial tables.
My $0.02 for today.
John Rodgers
88 GL Driver - with insurance issues
Don Hanson wrote:
> "Stated Value" policies aren't at all a sure thing is what my attorney
> told me when I was in my last fight with an insurance company for
> compensation following a crash incident. Others (the appraisers and
> arbitrators involved in my case) who deal with the insurance industry for a
> living told me the same thing...semi-off the record, but as it was
> explained, it makes good sense and my (somewhat limited) experiences support
> this.
>
> What you may think you read in your fine print and/or what your agent
> explains to you, in any insurance policy, is all subject to
> litigation...Insurance companies exist because of litigation and by
> litigation; they have large full time staff and volumes of actuarial (sp?)
> tables that compute their (and your) predicted expenses and the chances of
> an unfavorable judgment being reached every possible court situation.
> According to the experienced insurance industry-related pros that I was
> involved with, when "The Numbers" indicate to your insurance company that
> paying a claim would be more expensive than 'stone-walling' and taking their
> client to court to contest the claim, they will usually chose to 'contest'
> the claim.("It's business" after all, they need to make money for their
> stockholders...gag, choke ....) This is just what occurred in both my past
> insurance episodes..
>
> Most of us 'civilians' aren't prepared to fight a lengthy legal battle
> against an experienced and unlimited-funds opponent (insert name of the
> insurance company) The insurance company's tables (statistics) that show
> them this is so. They'll 'run the numbers' and if , statistically, they see
> that paying your claim will (according to the statistical probabilities in
> the tables) cost them more than not paying..you will likely have a fight on
> your hands to get the "agreed value" you think you contracted for. An
> "Agreed Value" policy is just a little easier for the insurance company to
> wiggle out of..It doesn't bother the insurance company to deny your claim,
> because it's what they do if their "numbers" tell them their profits will be
> maximized by so doing...They may start with a silly "Low-Ball" offer..citing
> some 'violation' you made to the fine print on your policy...Too many miles,
> a faulty brake shoe, skid marks at the accident indicate you were
> speeding...whatever...It'll be an attempt to 'make money' for the
> company....Just business.
>
> If you do decide to litigate and hire an attorney the attorney will often
> advise you that 'arbitration' will be more effective and timely than
> actually going into court...but 'Arbitrators' (who you must pay for) make
> their living repeatedly deciding cases 'for insurance companies' day in and
> day out...They are not likely to decide too heavily in YOUR favor..because
> the next time..they won't be 'agreed upon' by that insurance company (no
> "agreed-upon=no future work for the arbitrator)...If you do decide to fight
> it through to court, you may not see any settlement for a couple of years,
> if at all...so most people cave in...Which is exactly what the Insurance
> Company's statistical tables and computer programs tell them will
> happen...So...
>
> I decided, after a few pretty large financial hits and many years of
> paying large premiums, that my insurance has been worth little. I looked
> and inquired into 'agreed-value'..'collector car' whatever it's called where
> you live..and found that I had no reason to believe it might be more worth
> while or more workable than normal insurance. I ran my "Numbers" and
> decided to pay only for the legally required minimum insurance. If I lose
> value following an accident..so be it...it has always been so in my past
> dealings with insurance so I guess I'll just save my premium payments and
> use them for attorneys again...
>
> Don Hanson
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Roger Whittaker <rogerwhitt1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>> dear insurance
>> it matters a great deal where you are
>> in BC, Canada i have 35K$ declared value ... no survey required
>> this year i will be telling them my actual use has changed a great deal
>> since original policy written
>> so i imagine it will go up to about 1100$ a year premium ...
>>
>> in the states one can only imagine the myriad of different use policies
>> available ...
>> city use only ...
>> state use only ...
>> only travel one state outside of home state (this was a restriction in
>> Idaho
>> with a rental)
>> add infinity and beyond ...
>>
>> and my own opinion is ...
>> even if you are exceptionally wealthy ..insurance is a good idea for
>> vehicles
>> indeed any wealthy people i have known ..have considerable insurance on the
>> go all the time
>>
>> melissa ... get a good third party appraisal of your ride from someone who
>> is understanding of the real value of your bus
>> ask your insurer to recommend someone who they trust to do third party
>> surveys ..
>> indeed get two names and get them both to do a survey ...
>> yes you will spend a few hundred for the information ...
>> but in the end run you will have a real value if the worst happens to your
>> van...
>> yours
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Melissa Mourkas <westywoman@mac.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Aug 2, 2009, at 9:41 AM, Al Knoll wrote:
>>
>>>> So if it is a 'guzzler' get a
>>>> beater to drive for the most part and reserve your legendary Tardis
>>>> for
>>>> worthy ventures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I am sure this has been covered ad nauseum, but since I just
>>> purchased an extremely clean 1984 Westfalia, I am worried about
>>> insurance value. I apologize in advance, I have been off-list for a
>>> year or two in air-head (1981) world. Thoughts about and experience
>>> with appraisals and/or "classic car" insurance appreciated.
>>>
>>> Melissa Mourkas
>>> 84 Westy "Honey Bee"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> roger w
>> From Proverbs:
>> Under three things the earth trembles, under four it cannot bear up: a
>> servant who becomes king ...
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Explore printed work at: http://www.prliving.ca/
>> View the growing list of video work at:
>> http://revver.com/find/video/?query=LastonLastof&search_on=owners
>> and ... older work at
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7135104650374818257
>> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3259745150182742364
>>
>>
>
>
>
| 
