So the low information people leaving their keys in their car or even leaving it running should negate coverage for theft. I have no sympathy for them.
Comments about excluding coverage are not logical and completely contrary to the intent of insurance. To provide protection for the unfortunate incidents that occur in everyday life, i.e. “acts of god”, mistakes and stupidity, to which we are all subject. Bean counters beware, we are not making widgets and selling them for a profit. The business is one of risk and spreading the losses by the law of large numbers. Failure to understand this is failure to understand the very basis and purpose of our business. We must seek to teach the ignorant, not punish them.
What a stupid egghead remark. Have you ever heard of “intentional acts” not being covered under an insurance policy. A driver intentionally leaves his keys in the car or the car running invites the thief to strike. The best way to teach the ignorant is to deny the theft claim. They learn real quick that way.
So the low information people leaving their keys in their car or even leaving it running should negate coverage for theft. I have no sympathy for them.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What a stupid egghead remark. Have you ever heard of “intentional acts” not being covered under an insurance policy. A driver intentionally leaves his keys in the car or the car running invites the thief to strike. The best way to teach the ignorant is to deny the theft claim. They learn real quick that way.