Everyone has a some kind of phone that can get electronic information regardless of income status. With that said proof is given and then one month later the insured cancels policy or it is cancelled for non pay this goes on all the time. Now how do you handle the cancellations?? Not going to work cause everyone would need to be notified every month because some insured cancel every month ,what a nightmare!
My agency doesn’t contact the insured to let them know they are in non-pay cancel. If you call one, you have to call all, or you’re opening up an E&O can of worms.
Hey Gomba no we don’t either, but my point is the carrier would probably have to be sending the notice electronically and by snail mail also this seems like just more work and cost to the carrier.
Which means that will be passed on to the insured
I would imagine that this would be a great way to cut down on on fraud if the carrier only delivered an electronic copy via a mobile app. If the policy was lapsed for non-pay, then they could not provide proof when requested. The cost to keep the records updated electronically, after the initial set up, would not be that much. And it would reduce the E&O exposure for the agency.
I don’t agree with the notion that everybody has a phone capable of receiving the electronic proof as Broker states above. For that reason I don’t believe that an “only electronic” delivery would be feasible. Moreover, what about the stolen or lost phone situation? Or the person who does not want electronic proof on their phone? Or the person who does not want to carry a phone for a variety of reasons? Or the possibility of hacking? Exclusive electronic delivery is not what is being proposed here in any event.
The language quoted above includes “…any insurer issuing policies of insurance or motor vehicle liability insurance shall, upon request of either the named insured or the Department of Motor Vehicles, promptly issue…’ That is mandatory language, not optional language. Since there is no ambiguity in that language, a court would construe this as a mandate and would not inquire into the legistlative history to see what was meant. The way it reads, an insurer must issue the proof electronically if requested.
Everyone has a some kind of phone that can get electronic information regardless of income status. With that said proof is given and then one month later the insured cancels policy or it is cancelled for non pay this goes on all the time. Now how do you handle the cancellations?? Not going to work cause everyone would need to be notified every month because some insured cancel every month ,what a nightmare!
My agency doesn’t contact the insured to let them know they are in non-pay cancel. If you call one, you have to call all, or you’re opening up an E&O can of worms.
Hey Gomba no we don’t either, but my point is the carrier would probably have to be sending the notice electronically and by snail mail also this seems like just more work and cost to the carrier.
Which means that will be passed on to the insured
true dat, Broker..
I would imagine that this would be a great way to cut down on on fraud if the carrier only delivered an electronic copy via a mobile app. If the policy was lapsed for non-pay, then they could not provide proof when requested. The cost to keep the records updated electronically, after the initial set up, would not be that much. And it would reduce the E&O exposure for the agency.
I don’t agree with the notion that everybody has a phone capable of receiving the electronic proof as Broker states above. For that reason I don’t believe that an “only electronic” delivery would be feasible. Moreover, what about the stolen or lost phone situation? Or the person who does not want electronic proof on their phone? Or the person who does not want to carry a phone for a variety of reasons? Or the possibility of hacking? Exclusive electronic delivery is not what is being proposed here in any event.
The language quoted above includes “…any insurer issuing policies of insurance or motor vehicle liability insurance shall, upon request of either the named insured or the Department of Motor Vehicles, promptly issue…’ That is mandatory language, not optional language. Since there is no ambiguity in that language, a court would construe this as a mandate and would not inquire into the legistlative history to see what was meant. The way it reads, an insurer must issue the proof electronically if requested.