Q: I'm rebuilding my antique car and my grandfather's one-seater vintage biplane in my garage. Will my homeowners policy cover all the parts if they are stolen?
A: Probably not. Most homeowners policies exclude autos, aircraft, other motorized vehicles and their parts. You might have coverage for, say, a riding lawn mower or golf cart, but you'd be wise to talk to your agent and insurer about separate coverage that may be available for the parts during the rebuild process and after completion. Most antique cars and planes can be covered on specialized policies designed for their generally limited and unique use.
Note: This is one of a series of common -- or in some cases, particularly unusual -- questions received by our consumer advocacy staff, who answer questions from consumers.
Got a question or insurance problem of your own? If you live in Washington, feel free to give us a call, toll-free at 1-800-562-6900. We'll do our best to help. (And if you live in another state or territory, here's a handy map that lists the contact info for your local insurance regulatory office.)
Senin, 11 Juni 2012
Jumat, 08 Juni 2012
Coming this fall: Agents and brokers in WA can submit fingerprints electronically
For years, this has been done on paper cards, on which a worker rolls the applicant's inked fingers. It's messy, but more importantly, it's difficult to get good, usable prints. In fact, there's a 30 percent rejection rate by the State Patrol, meaning that the applicant has to go through the whole process again. We know it can be a pain, but we haven't had a good alternative.
So, good news: Starting late this summer or early fall, we will begin accepting electronically submitted fingerprints. We strongly encourage our resident applicants to use the service.
Why?
For one thing, the rejection rate is much lower. Instead of 30 percent, it's less than 3 percent.
It will also cost less. It now costs $42.50 to submit a paper fingerprint card. It will cost $32.50 to do it electronically.
It takes less time. In fact, in some cases, it could mean getting your license issued weeks earlier than with a paper card.
And there's probably a location close to you. More than 30 locations in Washington state can provide the fingerprinting service. Pearson Vue exam centers offer the service when applicants take the insurance exam, and the company also has a third-party vendor, Morpho Trust, that offers fingerprinting at several additional locations. You can find links to both on our new web page about electronic fingerprinting for insurance licensees.
Lastly, a question I know we'll get: Are electronic fingerprints required? No, not at this point. But we intend to require them starting during the first half of 2013.
Kamis, 07 Juni 2012
Open letter from Commissioner Kreidler to Premera and LifeWise policyholders
Our office has denied requests from Premera Blue Cross to strip some of the company's health plans of vital prescription drug coverage.
Premera filed a request with our office in late April, seeking approval to remove all prescription drug coverage from its small employer plans. These are plans sold to employers with 1-50 employees. Premera subsidiary Lifewise filed a request to remove drugs from all of its catastrophic (meaning high-deductible) plans.
Commissioner Kreidler disapproved those requests. Here's an open letter from the commissioner to Premera and Lifewise policyholders. From the letter:
Premera filed a request with our office in late April, seeking approval to remove all prescription drug coverage from its small employer plans. These are plans sold to employers with 1-50 employees. Premera subsidiary Lifewise filed a request to remove drugs from all of its catastrophic (meaning high-deductible) plans.
Commissioner Kreidler disapproved those requests. Here's an open letter from the commissioner to Premera and Lifewise policyholders. From the letter:
Let me be clear: Contrary to what Premera has implied, your health plan can keep generic drug coverage and even require you to use a generic drug first. Nothing in my recent decision restricts your health plan from covering generic drugs.But if you get sick and a generic drug doesn’t exist for your condition or doesn’t work for you, your health insurer must let you try a brand-name drug that could work.
I understand that generic drugs may work for many people most of the time, but it’s my job to protect all insurance consumers. There are some diseases for which generic drugs may not work, such as certain cancers and mental illnesses, diabetes, MS, certain types of arthritis, and AIDS.
Legally, if a plan has prescription drug coverage it cannot restrict someone’s access to a prescription drug that could be vital to a medical condition that’s otherwise covered by the plan and for which they’ve paid a premium.
Rabu, 06 Juni 2012
New insurance bills take effect tomorrow
Four new insurance-related bills take effect tomorrow. None were insurance commissioner request legislation, but they will impact consumers starting June 7.
Whether you'd like to share your car or get evacuated home from a trip, there's something for everyone. Want to know more? Here's the complete list:
Usage-based insurance
Car sharing
Air rescue
PEBB ombudsman for retired state employees
Whether you'd like to share your car or get evacuated home from a trip, there's something for everyone. Want to know more? Here's the complete list:
Usage-based insurance
Car sharing
Air rescue
PEBB ombudsman for retired state employees
Definition of "Accident" Under the SABS
Downer v. Personal Insurance Co., 2012 ONCA 302 (C.A.)
The issue on this appeal was whether the plaintiff was in an “accident” that entitled him to accident benefits.
On February 26, 2000, the plaintiff was physically assaulted by several unidentified assailants while parked at a gas station sorting his money. He escaped by putting his car in gear and driving away. He believed he may have run over one of his assailants in the course of fleeing. He claimed he sustained psychological and physical injuries as a result of the incident.
The insurer initially paid benefits, but then took the position that the injuries were not caused by an accident within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the SABS, which defines an "accident" as “an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment”. The motion judge granted a declaration that the plaintiff was involved in an “accident” within the meaning of the SABS. The insurer appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with respect to the physical injuries, holding that the physical assault did not constitute an “accident”. The Court held that a trial was required to determine whether the psychological injuries were caused by the ordinary use of a motor vehicle.
The proper test to be applied is the modified causation test set out in Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 338 (C.A.):
1. Was the use or operation of the vehicle a cause of the injuries?
2. If the use or operation of a vehicle was a cause of the injuries, was there an intervening act or intervening acts that resulted in the injuries that cannot be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things?” In that sense, can it be said that the use or operation of the vehicle was a “direct cause” of the injuries?
At paragraph 39, Justice LaForme held that under the modified causation test, it is not enough to show that an automobile was the location of an injury inflicted by tortfeasors, or that the automobile was somehow involved in the incident giving rise to the injury. Rather, the use or operation of the automobile must have directly caused the injury. Justice LaForme held that an assault on the plaintiff as he sat in his vehicle sorting money cannot be considered a normal incident of the risk created by the use of operation of the car. With respect to the psychological injuries, he held that running someone over could be considered a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of a vehicle.
One has to wonder whether this case has limited applicability due to its facts, or whether it will give rise to more claims of psychological injuries in order to fit an incident into the definition of “accident” within the SABS.
The issue on this appeal was whether the plaintiff was in an “accident” that entitled him to accident benefits.
On February 26, 2000, the plaintiff was physically assaulted by several unidentified assailants while parked at a gas station sorting his money. He escaped by putting his car in gear and driving away. He believed he may have run over one of his assailants in the course of fleeing. He claimed he sustained psychological and physical injuries as a result of the incident.
The insurer initially paid benefits, but then took the position that the injuries were not caused by an accident within the meaning of s. 2(1) of the SABS, which defines an "accident" as “an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment”. The motion judge granted a declaration that the plaintiff was involved in an “accident” within the meaning of the SABS. The insurer appealed.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with respect to the physical injuries, holding that the physical assault did not constitute an “accident”. The Court held that a trial was required to determine whether the psychological injuries were caused by the ordinary use of a motor vehicle.
The proper test to be applied is the modified causation test set out in Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 338 (C.A.):
1. Was the use or operation of the vehicle a cause of the injuries?
2. If the use or operation of a vehicle was a cause of the injuries, was there an intervening act or intervening acts that resulted in the injuries that cannot be said to be part of the “ordinary course of things?” In that sense, can it be said that the use or operation of the vehicle was a “direct cause” of the injuries?
At paragraph 39, Justice LaForme held that under the modified causation test, it is not enough to show that an automobile was the location of an injury inflicted by tortfeasors, or that the automobile was somehow involved in the incident giving rise to the injury. Rather, the use or operation of the automobile must have directly caused the injury. Justice LaForme held that an assault on the plaintiff as he sat in his vehicle sorting money cannot be considered a normal incident of the risk created by the use of operation of the car. With respect to the psychological injuries, he held that running someone over could be considered a normal incident of the risk created by the use or operation of a vehicle.
One has to wonder whether this case has limited applicability due to its facts, or whether it will give rise to more claims of psychological injuries in order to fit an incident into the definition of “accident” within the SABS.
Senin, 04 Juni 2012
Insurance and sleepovers
Q: My daughter's having a friend over for a sleepover. If the friend trips and falls or something, would my homeowners policy cover her medical bills?
A: Generally yes, since most modern homeowners policies have what's known as "guest medical" coverage. This is designed to pay the medical bills -- up to a specified dollar limit per accident -- for accidental injury to guests. But it doesn't cover you or other resident family members.
The coverage is a no-fault type of coverage that is designed to apply to accidents with no determination of fault or negligence on your part. Your insurer will still do an investigation to gather the facts of the accident.
Note: This is one of a series of common -- or in some cases, particularly unusual -- questions received by our consumer advocacy staff, who answer questions from consumers.
Got a question or insurance problem of your own? If you live in Washington, feel free to give us a call, toll-free at 1-800-562-6900. We'll do our best to help. (And if you live in another state or territory, here's a handy map that lists the contact info for your local insurance regulatory office.)
A: Generally yes, since most modern homeowners policies have what's known as "guest medical" coverage. This is designed to pay the medical bills -- up to a specified dollar limit per accident -- for accidental injury to guests. But it doesn't cover you or other resident family members.
The coverage is a no-fault type of coverage that is designed to apply to accidents with no determination of fault or negligence on your part. Your insurer will still do an investigation to gather the facts of the accident.
Note: This is one of a series of common -- or in some cases, particularly unusual -- questions received by our consumer advocacy staff, who answer questions from consumers.
Got a question or insurance problem of your own? If you live in Washington, feel free to give us a call, toll-free at 1-800-562-6900. We'll do our best to help. (And if you live in another state or territory, here's a handy map that lists the contact info for your local insurance regulatory office.)
Jumat, 01 Juni 2012
Washington state insurance markets: Our annual report
Get 'em before they're sold out. (That's a joke. They're online only, and we have no shortage of pixels.)
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)