4 ms·

That's astounding on another level, too — they encourage owners to get their own insurance policy! And yet they aren't aware of any such providers. Insane. >

by 3JPLW 7y ago

That's astounding on another level, too — they encourage owners to get their own insurance policy! And yet they aren't aware of any such providers. Insane. > A) On our insurance page kitsplit.com/insurance We explain in underlined terms that “we recommend that owners need to get their own annual policy with voluntary parting coverage in addition to the insurance provided by the renter.” > The sad reality is that insurance companies simply do not cover voluntary parting. As a result we are, as of now, unable to offer voluntary parting because there are no insurance partners who provide it. Now I'm sure there's a difference between ensuring a business as a whole like that and insuring yourself, but seriously?

mncolinlee 7y ago
I do hate playing devil's advocate because I totally disagree with the position of the devil in this case. Keep in mind that it's possible to be technically correct and also completely misleading. In this case, she's arguing that their insurance partners do not provide voluntary parting insurance. This may be technically correct. However, the way insurance works is you can always go to an insurer of last resort and ask for exceptions. Lloyd's of London will cover race cars while racing or space vessels for accidents, for example, even though those are hardly standard policies. Nearly anything can be covered if you set the premium and deductibles high enough. They have billing codes for some pretty bizarre insured cases. An entire sharing economy of companies could easily devise an insurance product that meets these needs if they worked to make it to happen. It would be trivial to scare consumers away from competitors that do not provide this.
- 3JPLW 7y ago
  You're missing my point. She's simultaneously saying: * Get your own coverage * Insurance companies don't cover it. Full stop. It's not that it's unavailable "at a reasonable price." It's "woe is us, we would if we could, but those damn insurance partners won't let us." I know her last point isn't accurate, but that's what she's saying and she's phrasing it that way intentionally to shift responsibility. It's abhorrent.

by 3JPLW 7y ago

mncolinlee 7y ago

I do hate playing devil's advocate because I totally disagree with the position of the devil in this case. Keep in mind that it's possible to be technically correct and also completely misleading. In this case, she's arguing that their insurance partners do not provide voluntary parting insurance. This may be technically correct. However, the way insurance works is you can always go to an insurer of last resort and ask for exceptions. Lloyd's of London will cover race cars while racing or space vessels for accidents, for example, even though those are hardly standard policies. Nearly anything can be covered if you set the premium and deductibles high enough. They have billing codes for some pretty bizarre insured cases. An entire sharing economy of companies could easily devise an insurance product that meets these needs if they worked to make it to happen. It would be trivial to scare consumers away from competitors that do not provide this.

3JPLW 7y ago
You're missing my point. She's simultaneously saying: * Get your own coverage * Insurance companies don't cover it. Full stop. It's not that it's unavailable "at a reasonable price." It's "woe is us, we would if we could, but those damn insurance partners won't let us." I know her last point isn't accurate, but that's what she's saying and she's phrasing it that way intentionally to shift responsibility. It's abhorrent.