Insurance... Just need to vent

[Gone in 60]

Having an insurance background myself, albeit in claims investigation, I found the premise of their argument nonsensical. How are there countless couples in California, where only one member rides, manage to find insurance. And if they couldn’t help me, how was “another company” going to do so if this was supposedly a law.

How did the third guy I spoke with suddenly have no problem at all adding another bike, himself questioning why I had so much trouble with the first two guys?

In any case, when I got home, Mrs. G handed me a very tall Moscow Mule, then drove me to a nice dinner at a new place we haven’t tried yet. All’s well.

[GoldOxide_imp]

Hey Gone: Maybe if and when the smell returns, get the insurance company to produce a copy of the reference to the [California] law that they are following. They should be able to do that. If they cannot, well, that is another issue of competence.

In terms of other riders in the home [with and] without a license to ride: I have had that argument with an insurance company before and could not win. They claim other non-riders in the home still have access to the keys and the vehicle even if they do not ride. Hence, the extra liability on each motorcycle, even though I am the only legal rider in the home and can only ride one vehicle at a time. I argued, bill me the comprehensive and maybe the collision coverage for each vehicle, but one liability for all two-wheeled vehicles. Sounds logical? They wouldn't have it, and I am unsure if it is even a provincial thing or just an industry practice thing up here. The usual follow-up response was along the lines of we understand your reasoning and it is sensible, but we cannot.

The bottom line is the insurance company cannot be assured that no one else would ride my other bikes while I am out on the road with another (or not). Certainly in theft that would be true. But heck, why would we wish to cover liability of a thief? A wee bit twisted for better or for worse.

[Nachodaddy]

Gone, I also have been with USAA since 1976 and sometime in the last few years they began transferring me to Progressive to insure my motorcycles. No explanation other than that Progressive now handles their motorcycle insurance. Your weird phone call experience was like something out of The Twilight Zone, however.

[peterbaron]

What?

[KiowaEagle_imp]

Bazaar? Yes. Am I surprised? No.

I'm sure USAA is a great company but if there's anything I've learned about insurance it's this.

1) Being a loyal customer for years means squat. If anything it's a detriment because they feel they can do just about anything and you won't leave.

2) Shop around every two or three years. Yes it's a pia but it can save you a lot.

3) Don't shop online, an agent can usually get you better deals. When you shop online you think you're eliminating the middleman. You're only allowing them to overcharge you because you think that.

4) When shopping around do it with different agents because rule #1 applies to them too.

[emptysea]

Sounds like USAA is outsourcing their motorcycle business (and I would guess boat insurance as well) to Progressive. It's probably a good business decision to outsource specialty lines like this. In most scenarios, the client still calls the same agent or carriers (USAA in this case) for changes, questions, payments. They probably report claims there as well, but the claims will be processed by the underwriting carrier (Progressive here). I think this arrangement works fine for vehicle insurance, but when GEICO and Progressive Direct (you can also buy Progressive through independent agents like myself) outsource home insurance, they step out of their elements a bit. You are not likely to get good home insurance advice from the GEICO representative that issues an outsourced Traveler's Home policy.

Kiowa is a great guy and an wonderful motorcyclist. His opinions are just that and I'm not going to blow up this thread with where I think he's incorrect. We can have a nice long conversation on the topic over beers and a bonfire in Virginia.

[GoldOxide_imp]

It is "things" like this that take a bit of spirit out of what is supposed to be just living.

[Gone in 60]

So, after sleeping on this, and regaining my senses of deductive reasoning and cognitive thinking, I had some thoughts. Yes, Progressive is related to USAA, and I'm probably technically covered by Progressive. My first insurance job was as a claims adjuster for Progressive in the early '90s. Progressive provided "Lender collateral protection" insurance for vehicles financed through USAA. What that means is, if you finance a vehicle but don't get your own insurance, USAA will put a comprehensive/collision coverage on the vehicle and add the cost to your monthly payment. This coverage just covers the asset, but does not provide the basic legal requirements. As you can imagine, if someone is too poor, or too lazy to get insurance on their financed vehicle, they aren't going to take very good care of it. The claims work I did on these cars and bikes was... interesting.

I then thought that maybe they put my new bike on a Named Driver Only program - meaning that I would be the only person covered if I rode my bikes. They have the ability to just cover me as the operator of the motorcycles, and if Mrs. G were to ride any one of them, there would be no coverage. This would wash USAA's hands if she were to ride and have an accident. But, I reviewed my updated policy on their website this morning, and, nope, we're both covered to operate any of our covered cars and bikes.

Oh well. I'll go with what Steve, the last guy, told me yesterday. No problem, sir, and not sure why you had trouble with the other guys. Does make me scared to try to add another bike down the road, but I don't plan on selling either the CB1100 or the Triumph, and hopefully I'll keep the Enfield in my long-term fleet. I don't tend to trade bikes that often.

[GoldOxide_imp]

So, after sleeping on this, and regaining my senses of deductive reasoning and cognitive thinking, I had some thoughts. Yes, Progressive is related to USAA, and I'm probably technically covered by Progressive. My first insurance job was as a claims adjuster for Progressive in the early '90s. Progressive provided "Lender collateral protection" insurance for vehicles financed through USAA. What that means is, if you finance a vehicle but don't get your own insurance, USAA will put a comprehensive/collision coverage on the vehicle and add the cost to your monthly payment. This coverage just covers the asset, but does not provide the basic legal requirements. As you can imagine, if someone is too poor, or too lazy to get insurance on their financed vehicle, they aren't going to take very good care of it. The claims work I did on these cars and bikes was... interesting.

I then thought that maybe they put my new bike on a Named Driver Only program - meaning that I would be the only person covered if I rode my bikes. They have the ability to just cover me as the operator of the motorcycles, and if Mrs. G were to ride any one of them, there would be no coverage. This would wash USAA's hands if she were to ride and have an accident. But, I reviewed my updated policy on their website this morning, and, nope, we're both covered to operate any of our covered cars and bikes.

Oh well. I'll go with what Steve, the last guy, told me yesterday. No problem, sir, and not sure why you had trouble with the other guys. Does make me scared to try to add another bike down the road, but I don't plan on selling either the CB1100 or the Triumph, and hopefully I'll keep the Enfield in my long-term fleet. I don't tend to trade bikes that often.

One trick is to stop looking for them.





(they will find you, like a cat)

[Cormanus]

EmptySea, you’re an articulate chap. I’m sure you can respond courteously to KiowaEagle’s opinions, particularly given your knowledge and experience as an independent agent. The consumer advice given in this country is to get quotes from different insurance companies every year. That advice extends to energy and other companies as well. I’d be particularly interested in your views on that.

How does being an independent agent work in the USA? Are you paid by your customers or by a commission from insurers?

Moving on, surely no insurance company would write a policy requiring it to pay out where a vehicle was being operated illegally—for example, by an unlicensed driver/rider. It seems to me the presumption behind the advice given to Gone is that, if one party to a joint vehicle policy broke the law by driving/riding a vehicle they were not licensed to operate, the insurer would have to pay out. Is that really the law in California? If it were, surely insurers would find a way to write policies that avoided the requirement?

In the days of cutting costs by removing expertise from systems and relying on people to interpret scripts on a computer screen, it is not a total surprise that an inexperienced call centre functionary might get something terribly wrong. That the story was maintained by the supervisor speaks of a more worrying problem. In an ideal world, I’d be hoping to Steve passed the information about Gone’s experience up the line so the first two could be retrained. Of course, in our increasingly punitive world, Steve may not do so because it may simply result in his colleagues’ employment being terminated. Let’s hope he has a quiet word with them.