Insurance question: Hagerty won’t cover my 993
02-09-2019, 01:57 AM
#16
Rennlist Member
The real question is if the insurance company asked you a specific question about track use. If they did not, then not mentioning it can’t be fraud. FYI, I don’t recall my carrier, Heacock, asking about track usage.
02-09-2019, 02:15 AM
#17
Rennlist Member
I disagree. Concealing or not disclosing the use of your vehicle will result in the denial of a claim. In addition, knowingly concealing the use of your vehicle other than disclosed will constitute fraud.
02-09-2019, 10:50 AM
#18
Rennlist Member
By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.
What about if someone is pulled over for reckless driving and receives a warning? Should the insured immediately call the insurer and disclose the warning? What if the insured has two martinis and then drives after three or four hours? Perhaps not a DWI but maybe a DUI that would register less than .08 but is more than a zero tolerance .02. Should the insured call the insurer and inform them that he drove after a few drinks and was under the influence?
The same thing applies if someone dents your bumper. Even if you're not at fault, I believe you're required to inform your insurer of the accident. How many of us actually do this in an effort to let the other party's insurance company handle the claim?
02-09-2019, 01:36 PM
#19
Rennlist Member
....also, if it's known already that a de or track event is not covered & you know that you will be getting track insurance for the event, why would you tell them & why would they even care?
02-09-2019, 03:29 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
They asked me point blank do you use the car for HPDE, autocross. I told them they offer track coverage and they said still a decline.
02-09-2019, 03:43 PM
#21
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
If the question is not asked, how is the insured concealing material information (if the insured is doing timed or track events)?
By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.
What about if someone is pulled over for reckless driving and receives a warning? Should the insured immediately call the insurer and disclose the warning? What if the insured has two martinis and then drives after three or four hours? Perhaps not a DWI but maybe a DUI that would register less than .08 but is more than a zero tolerance .02. Should the insured call the insurer and inform them that he drove after a few drinks and was under the influence?
The same thing applies if someone dents your bumper. Even if you're not at fault, I believe you're required to inform your insurer of the accident. How many of us actually do this in an effort to let the other party's insurance company handle the claim?
By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.
What about if someone is pulled over for reckless driving and receives a warning? Should the insured immediately call the insurer and disclose the warning? What if the insured has two martinis and then drives after three or four hours? Perhaps not a DWI but maybe a DUI that would register less than .08 but is more than a zero tolerance .02. Should the insured call the insurer and inform them that he drove after a few drinks and was under the influence?
The same thing applies if someone dents your bumper. Even if you're not at fault, I believe you're required to inform your insurer of the accident. How many of us actually do this in an effort to let the other party's insurance company handle the claim?
The question was asked on the phone and its also on the application under the “vehicle use”
02-09-2019, 04:11 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
Thread Starter
The thing that that got me crazy with Hagerty is that they sell track insurance. So why not just exclude track events and cover me on road? Then I buy your track coverage for those events. Doesn’t make sense but maybe it’s a state specific thing?
02-09-2019, 04:28 PM
#24
Yea I ended up going to a broker he is checking into American modern, Chubb and a few others.
The thing that that got me crazy with Hagerty is that they sell track insurance. So why not just exclude track events and cover me on road? Then I buy your track coverage for those events. Doesn’t make sense but maybe it’s a state specific thing?
Well, I spoke to Hagerty last summer, and they declined me because I said I might use the car to get ice cream - no joke! That makes even less sense to me ...
02-09-2019, 05:23 PM
#25
Rennlist Member
If the question is not asked, how is the insured concealing material information (if the insured is doing timed or track events)?
By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.
What about if someone is pulled over for reckless driving and receives a warning? Should the insured immediately call the insurer and disclose the warning? What if the insured has two martinis and then drives after three or four hours? Perhaps not a DWI but maybe a DUI that would register less than .08 but is more than a zero tolerance .02. Should the insured call the insurer and inform them that he drove after a few drinks and was under the influence?
The same thing applies if someone dents your bumper. Even if you're not at fault, I believe you're required to inform your insurer of the accident. How many of us actually do this in an effort to let the other party's insurance company handle the claim?
By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.
What about if someone is pulled over for reckless driving and receives a warning? Should the insured immediately call the insurer and disclose the warning? What if the insured has two martinis and then drives after three or four hours? Perhaps not a DWI but maybe a DUI that would register less than .08 but is more than a zero tolerance .02. Should the insured call the insurer and inform them that he drove after a few drinks and was under the influence?
The same thing applies if someone dents your bumper. Even if you're not at fault, I believe you're required to inform your insurer of the accident. How many of us actually do this in an effort to let the other party's insurance company handle the claim?
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.
02-09-2019, 05:39 PM
#26
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by 993pbug
That doesn’t make sense at all as it would only allow them to sell an additional “on-demand” policy for added revenues.
Well, I spoke to Hagerty last summer, and they declined me because I said I might use the car to get ice cream - no joke! That makes even less sense to me ...
Well, I spoke to Hagerty last summer, and they declined me because I said I might use the car to get ice cream - no joke! That makes even less sense to me ...
02-09-2019, 05:43 PM
#27
I wish you guys would stop talking negatively about the poor insurance companies who obviously have plenty of revenue to hire plenty of lawyers, lobbyist and politicians to have laws written and passed to benefit their bottom line.
The system has not been of, for, and by the PEOPLE, for quite some time now.
While I dont often agree with the author of these words, I can honestly say a I agree wholeheartedly.
[/QUOTE]By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.[/QUOTE]
The system has not been of, for, and by the PEOPLE, for quite some time now.
While I dont often agree with the author of these words, I can honestly say a I agree wholeheartedly.
[/QUOTE]By your rationale, if an insured goes five miles an hour over the speed limit on a regular basis (and, come on, we all do), he is speeding. Shouldn't he (and all of us) now disclose to the insurer (even if not specifically asked) that we regularly speed and that our behavior is not likely to change? No one is going to do that but not disclosing is considered concealing based on your premise.[/QUOTE]
02-09-2019, 05:56 PM
#28
02-09-2019, 06:22 PM
#29
Rennlist Member
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.
This begs the following questions:
- What are the number of nationwide incidences of insureds who are brought to trial for unintentional misrepresentation?
- How often do you inform your insurance company when you exceed the speed limit?
- Do you think insureds should cite every single possible and hypothetical instance of behaviors that might be in conflict of a policy when seeking insurance? "I want to disclose that I will exceed the speed limit on a regular basis. I might not always use my turn signal. My BAC level might be slightly higher than .01. I probably won't shovel and salt my sidewalk until at least 24 hours after snowfall ends. At least two square feet of my closed cell spray foam isn't covered by an ignition/fire barrier. I have a dying tree in my yard but don't have the $2,000 to take it down. I like to slide around on my wood floors while I wear socks. My third cousin twice removed is clinically insane and visits me four times a year; he likes to come stoned out of his gourd and enjoys breaking things."
I'm not trying to be flippant, but I think there's theory/law and then there's reality. If the answers to the last two bullet points is 'no,' then unintentional misrepresentation is obviously rampant. Not sure where the two dovetail, but it would appear that I, and I suspect many others, are guilty of unintentional misrepresentation.
Personally, I will lose zero sleep over it.
02-09-2019, 08:32 PM
#30
Read the policy. This is part of your contract and that is what counts.