Keys Left in Car? Arizona Bill Would Allow Insurance Hit

March 20, 2006

  • March 20, 2006 at 7:15 am
    Why do we all pay? says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    No one said, deny coverage. This is merely a law that ALLOWS a company to put a clause in their policy saying \”look, if you don\’t even bother to lock your car, we\’ll cover you, but your deductible is higher.\” This doesn\’t mean that you can\’t buy a policy without this clause, it means that for most folks, they can go with a company that will have somewhat lower claims costs and for the person who refuses to lock their car, we don\’t ALL have to pay for that moron.

    I can\’t tell you how many people I run into, on a regular basis, who simply refuse to lock their cars or take their keys. Did you know that in some places (like Colorado) it\’s ILLEGAL to leave your keys in your car? In Rhode Island, car theft was so rampant that insurance companies are required, by law, to obtain a VIN inspection prior to providing physical damage coverage on a car. And it has to be by an official state certified inspector, complete with a photo of the VIN data sticker! Don\’t get your VIN inspected? Your comp/collision is removed, by law. They cut their auto theft rates dramatically after they did this.

    For the person who says, \”Hey, I can leave my keys in my car, no one will steal MY car….\” fine.. go ahead. Then you shouldn\’t have to worry about that higher deductible, since no one will ever steal YOUR car! In the mean time, my rates are being driven up by your ill informed decision to make your car \”theft bait\”.

  • March 20, 2006 at 8:37 am
    John says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Where does this (PERSON)? Republician come off talking about Democrate. Take a look at what you got in Arizona and then Texas??? Where did Chaney shoot his lawyer in a poor house. As far as Insurance goes you dont have to sign up with one of the idiot companys you refer to. There are others

  • March 20, 2006 at 1:36 am
    Personal Responsibility says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This proposal for a triple deductible is an excellent one; don\’t know how AZ\’s 20% theft rate with keys in the car translates across the country, but I think we all owe a duty to take reasonable care of our property, including removing the keys when we leave our vehicles. There\’s NOT supposed to be Stupidity Insurance…

  • March 20, 2006 at 1:47 am
    TXGuru says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If you\’ve ready any of my past postings on this forum, I\’m a vocal advocate of personal responsibility. It\’s nice to see a state step up to the plate and take a swing at encouraging it.

    Unfortunately, there is such a thing as Stupidity Insurance in this country. It\’s called the Federal Government.

  • March 20, 2006 at 2:08 am
    indemnity says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I too am for personal responsibility, but where do we draw the line here. If I have a fire at home because I accidentally overloaded a circuit, or left the iron on, does that mean I should be penalized by no being indemnified for my claim? Will the insurer now ask the insured to prove possesion of their keys every time a car is stolen? What is to keep the insured from just having a spare set at home?
    Part of the reason I have insurance is so I don\’t have to worry about stupid stuff like forgeting my keys in the car or forgetting to lock one of my doors to my house when I leave. Yes, there are morale hazards involved in insurance, but for they are built into the rate.

    Yes, we pay more because some people are stupid and leave their keys in the car on a regular basis. We are also paying more because they drive like idiots. Either way, the punishment is built into the rate, not into the indeminification which is the basis of insurance. If I pay the premium, I expect to be indemnified for my loss, whether it is my fault or not. If I wreck my car in a one car accident, I am still indemnified for my medical expenses and damage to my car. That is the reason I buy insurance. To be made whole, whether it is my fault or some one elses.

    If we are going to take personal responsibility to its fullest extent, then get rid of insurance entirely.

  • March 20, 2006 at 2:49 am
    insguy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Responding to \”indemnity\”. There is a big difference between leaving you iron. The difference is that with the iron the simply made a mistake. The problem with the car keys is different because the majority of people that do that do it intentionally and habitually. I have been an underwriter or almost twenty years now and actually started asking if they were worried about their car getting stolen. The most common answer was that they don\’t care; they need a new car anyways. This is clearly an attitude about insurance situation and not an issue of forgetfulness. Also, for the most the \”penalty\” is not built into the rate for insured like an accident or ticket is. The vast majority of insurer\’s do not (and cannot in most states) rate for comp claims. This is why I choose to nonrenew policies like this when the come across my desk. If it a know problem and I cannot rate for I am not keeping the policy.

  • March 20, 2006 at 2:53 am
    Lee says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Anything in that session about tightening up the border / investigating chop shops and organized rings / increasing penalities for the actual thief?? Does the car owner get a public defender to contest their \”crime\”? Clearly, the inmates are running the asylum.

  • March 20, 2006 at 5:09 am
    Republican says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    To indemnity:
    READ YOUR POLICY PROVISIONS! Several auto carriers in AZ. already have exclusions for auto theft whereby there is no evidence of forced entry. There is no coverage for idiots who leave their keys in the car. There are also charges of endangerment for leaving your child in your car. It is called lazy and irresponsible. As the underwriter said, the idiot thinks he needs a new car anyway, again without understanding policy provisions relating to depreciation. Personal responsibility is the fair route for everyone involved. If you are an idiot, and do not leave when a Level 3-5 hurricane approaches, you certainly do not deserve to be provided for by taxpayers who have brains. But, democrats want all the money to distribute according to their way of life. Ever notice the extremely rich democrats, who already have a pile of family money (Kennedy) want everyone else to support the poor?
    Read the policy you buy and understand the coverage you purchased for the premium you paid and you will not be standing in line with your hand out!

  • March 21, 2006 at 1:34 am
    Mr. Recall says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I\’ll bet that all of the cars stolen with the keys in the ignition have \”I voted for John Kerry\” stickers still on their bumpers. C\’mon Hillary, where is your response?

  • March 21, 2006 at 1:50 am
    Personal responsibility says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    …and the Kerry sticker almost hides the one about the election that was stolen four years earlier…

  • March 21, 2006 at 2:59 am
    party of responsibility says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Why doesn\’t the insurance company write it into the policy that if you leave the keys in the car you don\’t get paid?

    Why do you need a law to get the government to protect insurance companies from having to pay on policies that they didn\’t mind collecting money on?

    It is already mandatory for everyone to carry insurance. Now insurance companies don\’t want to pay on claims and want the government to back them up?

    I thought we had government for the people by the people, not government for the corporation by the corporation.

    And I resent you trying to make this a republican versus democratic issue.

  • March 22, 2006 at 8:51 am
    Bob says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There you go with the Federal Government thing again! What does Uncle Sam have to do with this particular situation? If you dont like the Federal Government that much, you might consider moving some place else. Mind you, that Uncle Sam does participate in some stupid adventures, but who doesnt at times. Stop hating on Uncle Sam. You never know when you\’re gonna need him!!

  • March 22, 2006 at 8:54 am
    boyd says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    HELLO!! Finally, somebody with some sense!

  • March 22, 2006 at 4:13 am
    ad says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This bill seems to be a pretty good idea. I don\’t think that coverage should be out right denied b/c you left the keys in the vehicle, but an increased ded for such a case sounds fair. It encourages insd\’s to lessen the likelyhood that their vehicle will be stolen by not leaving the keys in the car and could help to reduce fradulent claims. How often do you have claims where the vehicle was stolen and recovered partially burned or in a lake and there was actual damage to the steering column? I\’d like to see something like this in my state, but it will never happen – state legislature is made up of plaintiff attnys and they tend to look out for themselves.

  • April 10, 2006 at 10:09 am
    Susan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Dork.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*