5 ms·

The largest insurance claim I've had was for a little over $5k for a vehicle repair after collision while avoiding a pedestrian in the street. I'm not sure if y

The largest insurance claim I've had was for a little over $5k for a vehicle repair after collision while avoiding a pedestrian in the street. I'm not sure if you think that's "large" but it was very painless to do IMO.

danson 6y ago
That's not large in this context. It would need to be large enough to cover several thousand pounds of legal defense fees to investigate and argue against the claim. So at least several tens of thousands of dollars. Source: been through insurance claim on a business that burnt to the ground with months of finished product stock (and which our accountant had accidentally under-insured. Very painful!)
sfj 6y ago
I wasn't able to collect on insurance for “damage not due to a collision” on my motorcycle when it blew over in strong wind, because the insurance agent said, “There was a collision. When your motorcycle fell over it collided with the ground.”
- kuzimoto 6y ago
  What does it cover? Isn't any sort of damage potentially a collision?
  - gruez 6y ago
    I'm guessing it's only supposed to cover "traffic accidents", as opposed to "user caused" accidents (eg. dropping your phone on the ground).
    - sfj 6y ago
      Actually the opposite. Damage due to non-collision.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 6y ago
  That's BS, damage due to wind when nobody was occupying the vehicle is clearly an act of god and in no way was due to your control of the vehicle.
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Would there be any recourse, possibly in court? I can't imagine that response passing muster in court, because as another commenter pointed out, all damage would involve some kind of collision between two objects which means that if we accept their response then the policy would be worthless because it wouldn't be able to cover anything. It's implied (in the context of motor vehicle insurance) that "collision" in their case means collision between two vehicles but they're now trying to be pedantic about it when it's in their favor.
alistairSH 6y ago
Nope, not large. A friend had an Aston Martin that caught on fire. About a $120k car. It took months of investigations to close that claim. Insurance pointed finger at AM, AM wanted their own investigator, fire inspector involved, etc. And that’s not even large relative to a house or business.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  I had a similar problem with an Audi except it was between the original person that hit me, the repair center thst did more damage and allowed the car to be flooded, and Audi. 9 months to sort out most of the car issues on a 95k car.
- AlexCoventry 6y ago
  I thought the idea with insurance was that they would pay out and deal with recovering the funds legally, if possible.
  - dvtrn 6y ago
    They don’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts, insurance is ‘better to have and not need than need and not have’ and the longer you can go paying premiums without needing to file a claim the better for the insurer (monetarily speaking)
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    In my limited experience with car accidents, they generally do. This car burst into flames overnight while parked. Turns out it was an electrical short in the dashboard wiring. But, cars don't often self-immolate, so the suspicion of wrong-doing caused a delay. I also don't know if they paid before the investigation was completely closed. They may have, but even at that, it was a few weeks.
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > And that’s not even large relative to a house or business. It's way worse for a business, when I went to the MDRS for a week the bistro's kitchen in our Flagship restaurant went up in flames. The cause was unknown, but all in we lost 4.5 weeks of work due to unnecessary down time, not including the equipment repairs, contractor labor and misc costs because the city's investigators wouldn't come out to assess the damage in the allotted time slot to investigate and approve the repairs because of snow (IT'S COLORADO!) and then the Insurance stonewalled and tried to delay things further by not playing nice with the city that delayed reopening. All told I wouldn't be surprised if we lost over a couple 100ks in lost profits and limited operational costs (we still had the bar/grill upstairs) and having to rebuild the Kitchen plus labor. Corporate paid us bonuses, which were really just 1/3 of our normal pay to help offset expenses, because of limited hours. Bourdain was right: restaurants really are horrible businesses. Insurance which is mandatory, compounded with local government regulations and approval, makes it way worse.
messick 6y ago
That’s missing 5 or 6 zeros in order to be considered large.
sky_rw 6y ago
I can't think of a better comment to prove my point.

danson 6y ago

That's not large in this context. It would need to be large enough to cover several thousand pounds of legal defense fees to investigate and argue against the claim. So at least several tens of thousands of dollars. Source: been through insurance claim on a business that burnt to the ground with months of finished product stock (and which our accountant had accidentally under-insured. Very painful!)

sfj 6y ago

I wasn't able to collect on insurance for “damage not due to a collision” on my motorcycle when it blew over in strong wind, because the insurance agent said, “There was a collision. When your motorcycle fell over it collided with the ground.”

kuzimoto 6y ago
What does it cover? Isn't any sort of damage potentially a collision?
- gruez 6y ago
  I'm guessing it's only supposed to cover "traffic accidents", as opposed to "user caused" accidents (eg. dropping your phone on the ground).
  - sfj 6y ago
    Actually the opposite. Damage due to non-collision.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 6y ago
That's BS, damage due to wind when nobody was occupying the vehicle is clearly an act of god and in no way was due to your control of the vehicle.
Nextgrid 6y ago
Would there be any recourse, possibly in court? I can't imagine that response passing muster in court, because as another commenter pointed out, all damage would involve some kind of collision between two objects which means that if we accept their response then the policy would be worthless because it wouldn't be able to cover anything. It's implied (in the context of motor vehicle insurance) that "collision" in their case means collision between two vehicles but they're now trying to be pedantic about it when it's in their favor.

alistairSH 6y ago

Nope, not large. A friend had an Aston Martin that caught on fire. About a $120k car. It took months of investigations to close that claim. Insurance pointed finger at AM, AM wanted their own investigator, fire inspector involved, etc. And that’s not even large relative to a house or business.

ganoushoreilly 6y ago
I had a similar problem with an Audi except it was between the original person that hit me, the repair center thst did more damage and allowed the car to be flooded, and Audi. 9 months to sort out most of the car issues on a 95k car.
AlexCoventry 6y ago
I thought the idea with insurance was that they would pay out and deal with recovering the funds legally, if possible.
- dvtrn 6y ago
  They don’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts, insurance is ‘better to have and not need than need and not have’ and the longer you can go paying premiums without needing to file a claim the better for the insurer (monetarily speaking)
- alistairSH 6y ago
  In my limited experience with car accidents, they generally do. This car burst into flames overnight while parked. Turns out it was an electrical short in the dashboard wiring. But, cars don't often self-immolate, so the suspicion of wrong-doing caused a delay. I also don't know if they paid before the investigation was completely closed. They may have, but even at that, it was a few weeks.
Melting_Harps 6y ago
> And that’s not even large relative to a house or business. It's way worse for a business, when I went to the MDRS for a week the bistro's kitchen in our Flagship restaurant went up in flames. The cause was unknown, but all in we lost 4.5 weeks of work due to unnecessary down time, not including the equipment repairs, contractor labor and misc costs because the city's investigators wouldn't come out to assess the damage in the allotted time slot to investigate and approve the repairs because of snow (IT'S COLORADO!) and then the Insurance stonewalled and tried to delay things further by not playing nice with the city that delayed reopening. All told I wouldn't be surprised if we lost over a couple 100ks in lost profits and limited operational costs (we still had the bar/grill upstairs) and having to rebuild the Kitchen plus labor. Corporate paid us bonuses, which were really just 1/3 of our normal pay to help offset expenses, because of limited hours. Bourdain was right: restaurants really are horrible businesses. Insurance which is mandatory, compounded with local government regulations and approval, makes it way worse.

messick 6y ago

That’s missing 5 or 6 zeros in order to be considered large.

sky_rw 6y ago

I can't think of a better comment to prove my point.