Insurance question: Hagerty won’t cover my 993
02-09-2019, 08:40 PM
#31
Banned
Mark,
Courts do not distinguish between intentional and unintentional misrepresentaion.
Courts test whether the policy application would have been rejected had the true facts had been known.
The omission of a material fact is the basis for the underwriter writing the policy.
If the underwriter knew of the ommision, the policy would not have been issued.
Policies provide provisions for concealment, and misrepresentaion for fraud.
To void the policy on the basis of fraud, the policyholder swore falsely, made a material misrepresentaion, and /or concealed material information.
Did the insured lie to receive an economic benefit??
As I expressed in my earlier post, find an insurer that is willing to underwrite the risk.
I hope this helps.
Courts do not distinguish between intentional and unintentional misrepresentaion.
Courts test whether the policy application would have been rejected had the true facts had been known.
The omission of a material fact is the basis for the underwriter writing the policy.
If the underwriter knew of the ommision, the policy would not have been issued.
Policies provide provisions for concealment, and misrepresentaion for fraud.
To void the policy on the basis of fraud, the policyholder swore falsely, made a material misrepresentaion, and /or concealed material information.
Did the insured lie to receive an economic benefit??
As I expressed in my earlier post, find an insurer that is willing to underwrite the risk.
I hope this helps.
Many centuries ago a rule requiring voluntary full disclosure of all relevant information was established in regard to ocean marine insurance.It was a rule of necessity; the insurer had no access to the information and had to rely completely on the applicant. The rule appears to have continued to the present day for marine insurance, but it is not applied to other forms of insurance. In other lines of insurance, it's usually held that the applicant has no duty to disclose unless he is asked. The assumption is that an applicant can assume that facts are not material if the insurer fails to inquire.
Fernandez v. Bankers Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 906 F. 2d 559, 567 n.32 (11th Cir. 1990); Mattox v. W. Fid. Ins. Co., 694 F. Supp. 210,216 (N.D. Miss. 1988)
Specific to the OP's issue, since it was asked if the car was used for DE or autocross full disclosure was required.
02-10-2019, 12:08 AM
#32
Rennlist Member
Your correct. However, if the insurer does not ask the question you are under no obligation to provide information not asked.
Many centuries ago a rule requiring voluntary full disclosure of all relevant information was established in regard to ocean marine insurance.It was a rule of necessity; the insurer had no access to the information and had to rely completely on the applicant. The rule appears to have continued to the present day for marine insurance, but it is not applied to other forms of insurance. In other lines of insurance, it's usually held that the applicant has no duty to disclose unless he is asked. The assumption is that an applicant can assume that facts are not material if the insurer fails to inquire.
Fernandez v. Bankers Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 906 F. 2d 559, 567 n.32 (11th Cir. 1990); Mattox v..W. Fid. Ins. Co., 694 F. Supp. 210,216 (N.D. Miss. 1988)
Specific to the OP's issue, since it was asked if the car was used for DE or autocross full disclosure was required.
Many centuries ago a rule requiring voluntary full disclosure of all relevant information was established in regard to ocean marine insurance.It was a rule of necessity; the insurer had no access to the information and had to rely completely on the applicant. The rule appears to have continued to the present day for marine insurance, but it is not applied to other forms of insurance. In other lines of insurance, it's usually held that the applicant has no duty to disclose unless he is asked. The assumption is that an applicant can assume that facts are not material if the insurer fails to inquire.
Fernandez v. Bankers Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 906 F. 2d 559, 567 n.32 (11th Cir. 1990); Mattox v..W. Fid. Ins. Co., 694 F. Supp. 210,216 (N.D. Miss. 1988)
Specific to the OP's issue, since it was asked if the car was used for DE or autocross full disclosure was required.
Thiis is an 11th Circuit case. Did the case go up to the U.S. Supreme Court? I haven't had a chance to read the case, but based on your post, Fernandez v. Bankers National Life Insurance deals with marine insurance.
I'm sure that you are familiar with automobile application terms, conditions and provisions.
I wouldn't want a client omitting a material fact that benefits the policyholder economically at the expense of underwriting.
That is a good way for the insurer to decline coverage at the very minimum.
I agree that the OP's use was asked and disclosure is required.
The court scheduled submission of our briefs Tuesday, February 12, 2019. LOL
I'm sure that you are familiar with automobile application terms, conditions and provisions.
I wouldn't want a client omitting a material fact that benefits the policyholder economically at the expense of underwriting.
That is a good way for the insurer to decline coverage at the very minimum.
I agree that the OP's use was asked and disclosure is required.
The court scheduled submission of our briefs Tuesday, February 12, 2019. LOL
02-10-2019, 12:54 AM
#33
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
Thiis is an 11th Circuit case. Did the case go up to the U.S. Supreme Court? I haven't had a chance to read the case, but based on your post, Fernandez v. Bankers National Life Insurance deals with marine insurance.
I'm sure that you are familiar with automobile application terms, conditions and provisions.
I wouldn't want a client omitting a material fact that benefits the policyholder economically at the expense of underwriting.
That is a good way for the insurer to decline coverage at the very minimum.
I agree that the OP's use was asked and disclosure is required.
The court scheduled submission of our briefs Tuesday, February 12, 2019. LOL
I'm sure that you are familiar with automobile application terms, conditions and provisions.
I wouldn't want a client omitting a material fact that benefits the policyholder economically at the expense of underwriting.
That is a good way for the insurer to decline coverage at the very minimum.
I agree that the OP's use was asked and disclosure is required.
The court scheduled submission of our briefs Tuesday, February 12, 2019. LOL
I still cannot believe they just wouldn’t specifically exclude track events and limit their coverage to on-road useage ONLY. I’d be ok with that it’s totally reasonable. Then when I want to go on track I can buy track insurance that they offer and be covered under that policy for the day end of story. Instead they do me a “favor” and offer to cover me for liability only (NO collision even on-road)? Thanks but no thanks.
02-11-2019, 10:04 PM
#35
Instructor
02-12-2019, 01:22 PM
#37
Rennlist Member
02-12-2019, 02:36 PM
#38
Burning Brakes
What would be helpful is a thread seeking data and real past experience from those who've had accidents covered by these companies. Comparing ease and timelines of payouts, both to owners and repair shops, are important, in addition.
to lower premiums.which we all seek.
Hagerty's reputation for delivering is stellar, but so are their premiums.
to lower premiums.which we all seek.
Hagerty's reputation for delivering is stellar, but so are their premiums.
02-12-2019, 03:50 PM
#39
Drifting
I don't think not disclosing HPDE's in order to get daily coverage is insurance fraud if you purchase a separate DE policy (through another provider) to cover your car on track. That way if there's damage, it's the separate DE policy that pays for the damage repair or total. However it's ironic that Hagerty won't insure you because of HPDE participation considering they offer HPDE track insurance through RLI.
Last edited by David993S; 02-12-2019 at 04:34 PM.
02-14-2019, 04:21 PM
#40
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by cgfen
hagerty does not "suck", they have a great magazine, but they are too expensive for me.
I find similar coverage for 25% less with leland west.
Hagerty's mag, while good, is not worth $400 a year............
I find similar coverage for 25% less with leland west.
Hagerty's mag, while good, is not worth $400 a year............
04-23-2019, 08:22 PM
#41
Track Day
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: New York
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone, I just bought a 993 4S and live in Manhattan. This is my only car and I have called Chubb, Hagerty, Grubbs, American and Geico - none will do a stated value policy because 1. I do not have a private garage (who does in NYC other than Seinfeld..) and fully enclosed monthly parking in regular garage is not acceptable to them and 2. I do not have a regular vehicle I am insured on. I just got a quote for a regular insurance at Geico for $2500/year but I am worried that it wont cover the value of the car if something happens. They mentioned they go off KBB which is about half what I paid for my car + market value but unclear how they calculate that...Any advice?
04-23-2019, 10:07 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
Heacock is the way to go ..they are great. I have agreed value. I also only drive 3,000 miles a year and garaged on my property with security etc.. Not my primary car either. Excellent credit no accidents and own my car outright.
Last edited by Gbos1; 04-23-2019 at 11:18 PM.
04-24-2019, 12:35 AM
#44
SJW, a Carin' kinda guy
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
You must disclose all material facts relating to your application for insurance. Failure to disclose a material fact in your application will result in your insurer declining an unrelated claim.
Criminal fraud statutes may also be filed. Insurers work very closely withStates Attorney Generals.
When you work with your insurer they are generally friendly. When you work with claims, you are working with an entirely different group, all of whom are paid to save the insurer money.
You may have a stipulated value. As an example, you may be parked in a secure parking lot. Someone forcibly enters your car, and damages your car, or worse, causing personal injury or death. Your insurer will 1) decline coverage, to you and the claimnant 2) fail to defend you, 3) report the fraud to the State Attorney General for prosecution. You will be responsible for the civil damages caused to your car as well as others, personal injury, criminal and civil defense costs.
I know others may respond "they will never know" they have ways.
Be honest, direct and disclose all information. Failure to do otherwise will cause further complications.
Try to find an insurer that will accept you under your true use of your car.
Please don't be offended.
Criminal fraud statutes may also be filed. Insurers work very closely withStates Attorney Generals.
When you work with your insurer they are generally friendly. When you work with claims, you are working with an entirely different group, all of whom are paid to save the insurer money.
You may have a stipulated value. As an example, you may be parked in a secure parking lot. Someone forcibly enters your car, and damages your car, or worse, causing personal injury or death. Your insurer will 1) decline coverage, to you and the claimnant 2) fail to defend you, 3) report the fraud to the State Attorney General for prosecution. You will be responsible for the civil damages caused to your car as well as others, personal injury, criminal and civil defense costs.
I know others may respond "they will never know" they have ways.
Be honest, direct and disclose all information. Failure to do otherwise will cause further complications.
Try to find an insurer that will accept you under your true use of your car.
Please don't be offended.
04-24-2019, 07:27 AM
#45
My homeowner's policy is with PURE and they offered the best price for stated value insurance when bundled into that policy and discounts factored in. The primary stipulation is that the car is garaged, which it is.