Missouri Judge Dismisses $7 Million in Fines Against Allstate
Midwest News • July 25, 2008
A Jackson County judge agreed on Wednesday, July 23 to throw out a contempt order against Allstate Insurance after determining the company had finally complied with his directions to release ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Justice delayed is j
Posted On: July 29, 2008, 6:05 pm CDT
Posted By: Mark1
Comment:
Excuse me, Two Cents, but I didn't say that the insured should be required to find the best price on repairs.
The insured has the right to find the best VALUE for repairs for his property, and the lowest price may not indemnify him nor restore him to preloss. In fact, most states give the insured the right to choose the repair vendor by law, especially in motor vehicle repairs.
The adjuster should be determining what returns the claimant to preloss condition, without ambiguous terms not in the policy. The software may not do this.
The solution is simple: All the insurer has to do is invoke the right to repair in the policy, and repair the property for the insured, and then return the property to the insured after it is repaired.
Of course, we all know why this does not happen, because the insurer would then assume all liability for the repairs done to the insured's property.
In the current situations, the repair vendor is assuming the liability for repairs, while the insurer enjoys the low price.
But the mixing of two options under the policy, the option to repair, and the option to pay monies for repair, is taking place.
I have no doubt that this saves the insurer money, but question whether, in the face of record profits, if these savings are actually passed back to the consumer, or if diminishing the value of the indemnifcation sold to a claimant in the name of lowering premiums for all policyholders is a sound practice as well, let alone actually in the policy contract.
Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Justice delayed is j
The insured has the right to find the best VALUE for repairs for his property, and the lowest price may not indemnify him nor restore him to preloss. In fact, most states give the insured the right to choose the repair vendor by law, especially in motor vehicle repairs.
The adjuster should be determining what returns the claimant to preloss condition, without ambiguous terms not in the policy. The software may not do this.
The solution is simple: All the insurer has to do is invoke the right to repair in the policy, and repair the property for the insured, and then return the property to the insured after it is repaired.
Of course, we all know why this does not happen, because the insurer would then assume all liability for the repairs done to the insured's property.
In the current situations, the repair vendor is assuming the liability for repairs, while the insurer enjoys the low price.
But the mixing of two options under the policy, the option to repair, and the option to pay monies for repair, is taking place.
I have no doubt that this saves the insurer money, but question whether, in the face of record profits, if these savings are actually passed back to the consumer, or if diminishing the value of the indemnifcation sold to a claimant in the name of lowering premiums for all policyholders is a sound practice as well, let alone actually in the policy contract.