Insurance... Just need to vent

[Gone in 60]

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone right now and just want to vent.

I've been insured with USAA for 36 years, and have all of my vehicles and house covered with my policy.

Last year, when I bought the CB300R, I added it to my policy with no problems. This past October, when I started getting the itch to get a different bike, I called to get quotes on a few different models, and was told "When you're ready to add that new bike, just give us a call." No problem.

Today, I called USAA to add the Royal Enfield, and was told that I could not add the bike to my policy. California law had changed a few years ago, and now, all registered drivers in the family must be endorsed motorcyle riders to add a bike to a policy. This is because my wife has access to the motorycles in the household, and might ride them, even though she is not licensed.

I was dumbfounded. I asked if the law had changed a few years ago, how was I able to add the CB300R just last year with no problems. And, in October, why was I given quotes on bikes, and told "just add your new bike when you're ready" ? I was told that they had made an error in letting the new bike be added last year, and that I was misinformed during my call in October.

The representative was apologetic, but said that there was nothing he could do, as it was a law. I maintained a calm tone of voice, but it was clear that I was getting upset. I asked to speak to a supervisor, and was told "I can transfer you to a supervisor, but he will not be able to change this situation." He did, and I went back and forth with a supervisor for several minutes.

At the end of the conversation, I was told that I would be allowed to keep my current bikes on my policy, although the last one was admittedly added by mistake, and as I was misinformed during my last call, that the person I spoke with, who said I would be able to add another motorcycle to my policy "would be coached" to avoid making the same mistake in the future. But, there was no way I could add the new bike to my policy.

I was livid. I maintaned my composure as best I could, and said that this was of no help to me, and wanted some sort of resolution. The supervisor said "The only thing I can do is refer you to an outside carrier that USAA works with, who may be able to help you get your motorycle insured on a non-USAA policy. He transferred me.

The next voice I heard was "Thank you for calling USAA, this is Steve, how can I help you?" I asked who Steve worked for. "This is USAA". Not an outside company? "No, this is USAA. Can I help you?"

I then explained the conversations I had with the two people I had just spoken with, and said that all I wanted to do was add my new motorycle to my USAA policy. "No problem sir, I see you've been with us for 36 years." He asked for all of the details about the Enfield, confirmed my coverages, and gave me the premium information.

"Ok, are you ready to add the new bike to your policy?" No problem whatsoever. I asked him to confirm once again that he was with USAA, and to describe the other vehicles on my policy. He named them all off, and what each was covered for.

"Steve, how did I just have two heated conversations with a representative, and a supervisor with USAA, and told that there was no way I could add this bike to my policy, while you were able to do so with no problems?" "I don't know, sir, no problem on my end, your bike is now covered." I asked him to prove it.... "No problem, check your email, and you'll see your new USAA proof of insurance card."

"Ok, Steve, can you look at my record, and see if I'm now tagged as a difficult customer in the USAA system for any reason, based on the two conversations I just had before I spoke with you?" "Nothing here, sir. I wouldn't worry about it. You've been a valuable customer for many years."

Right now I'm exhausted, shaking, and have a massive headache. What just happened?

 

[the Ferret]

some things are beyond comprehension.

 

[tommymck]

Very strange indeed.

I have a different insurance mystery. I have several bikes insured through Progressive. The strange part is that every time I add a bike (I never seem to remove any...) my policy goes down. Only by 20 bucks each for the last couple of bikes, but I find it odd that insuring more bikes brings the total insurance bill down.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Yeah Gone, that show of incompetence was certainly a total waste of your energy. Happy Birthday man - somebody didn't get the memo (What was wrong with them!) :huh:

I am glad it worked out, but crap - I've had similar experiences in other domains. It can be crazy making.

I find up here adding bikes definitely increases total insurance premium, but each bike added gets cheaper - within reason, of course. Example: If I add a 2022 Honda Gold Wing, it won't get cheaper.

 

[Gone in 60]

Thanks… the first guy did say Happy Birthday before the conversation went sideways…

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

Thanks… the first guy did say Happy Birthday before the conversation went sideways…

Well, ... that was a swerve!

 

[Cormanus]

Inspired, I suspect, by George Orwell, the modern world has invented all kinds of ways to make sure “customer service” is the exact opposite. The designers are improving their models every day and it is getting harder and harder and harder to work through the artfully constructed layers of obstruction.

What a fine example of this phenomenon, Gone. I’m sorry you had to take one for the team in order to share with us, but I, for one appreciate it.

 

[DutchRutter]

I also have all my insurance and most loans through USAA. I've never had a single problem. Granted, I am in Oregon. When I insured the CB they referred me to Progressive (through USAA) and not actually USAA like my cages and home insurance, I still think that is a little bizarre.

I will say this about USAA, my wife wrecked two Subarus maybe a year apart from each other. And both times they went above and beyond to cover the loss, and take care of us with minimal increase in rates.

Edit: Definitely something not right with that "law" I'd suspect someone talking out of their butt tbh.

 

[emptysea]

I’m baffled and this is my occupation. There’s no way that CA could pass a law like this that wasn’t applicable to all insurers in the state, so a “non-USAA” carrier wouldn’t have been able to assist you either. If I had to guess, the rep was given wrong information about an internal USAA rule and mistook it as CA law.

I find the idea of either a state law or even a company rule like this implausible. If implemented, they’d lose probably 25% of their customers. Riders would have to insure individual bikes on individual policies or something. Then again CA has some of the goofier laws in the country so…..
Side note: USAA is one of the best insurance companies in the US.

 

[rboe]

I know that come call centers will answer the phone with the name of the company associated with the number the call is coming at - but they are NOT that company. But they can act on behalf of those companies - so in the end, same thing.

I wonder if that is what happened to you.

 

[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? :huh::huh:

 

[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.