State Farm Says No Auto Coverage for ... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

FerrariChat.com » General Ferrari Discussion Archives » Archive through March 06, 2003 » State Farm Says No Auto Coverage for Nuclear Damage... « Previous Next »

Author Message
I can't drive 55 (Sparetireless)
New member
Username: Sparetireless

Post Number: 36
Registered: 1-2003
Posted on Sunday, March 02, 2003 - 1:07 am:   

A less dramatic but more possible problem is other exemptions, some policies have exclussions for cars in an accident with each other if they are insured under the same policy. (It seems like the logic is a husband goes nuts because the wife spent his Ferrari payment at Bloomindales and decides to T-Bone his 275LM into her mint '57 testorossa out of spite, guess what you may not be covered.) Better check your policy, other problem areas, taking your car deep into Mexico may not be a good call either in terms of coverage, also most racing for prize money and hauling passengers for hire as well. Hope this does not knock you plans for the weekend.

Does this mean that the new Valentine detector will include, laser, K and X band, and alpha particles?
Tony Fuisz (Fuiszt)
New member
Username: Fuiszt

Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 3:15 pm:   

What about if your car gets sprinkled with some Strontium or something from a dirty bomb-Enough to make it unhealthy. Might just have to sell it on Ebay "as is".
Kevin Butler (Challenge)
Junior Member
Username: Challenge

Post Number: 105
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 3:00 pm:   

DES, I agree with much of what you say. One more comment pertaining to your quote "Capitalism is ok to an extent, but gone too far, it veers out of control, without concern for the very thing that keeps it going: the consumer." :

ECON 101. Most people don't know that economics is the science of choice. Not money, the stock market, checking accounts, or muni bonds. CHOICE. Choice that manifests itself by people's behavior in what they spend their bucks on (i.e. consuming).

You have to remember, in this world of fat cats and greedy companies, YOU can play a key role: STOP consuming their goods and services. It's like voting for president; it's the sum total of a bunch of individual decisions that make or break a candidate, or a company in this example. This thread began by balking at insurance companies' unwillingness to cover cars (Ferraris) in the event of a nuclear blast. Well, the options you have are (1) fire State Farm and go with another insurance company or (2) don't purchase a car that is as valuable as a Ferrari if you believe that there is a sufficient probability there will be a nuclear blast that will f--k up your car while sparing your life.

You see the economic connection? You are not forced to purchase a high-value automobile (that requires high-priced insurance) and you are not forced to use State Farm as your insurance company. If these priciples outweigh your desire to own an expensive car (unlikely in this crowd), then *POOF* the "BIG SHOTS" start losing money fast. Where you CHOOSE to spend your money really does have an effect.

BTW, I hate insurance companies, too, Arlie.

Over & out.
Mark (Markg)
Member
Username: Markg

Post Number: 400
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 2:39 pm:   

What does State Farm know that we don't.....
Ric Rainbolt (Ricrain)
Member
Username: Ricrain

Post Number: 500
Registered: 2-2002
Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 2:06 pm:   

Capitalism is ok to an extent, but gone too far, it veers out of control, without concern for the very thing that keeps it going: the consumer.

I disagree. If captilism were not fettered, the top-heavy, fat-cat laiden company of Horsey's personal vendetta would be run out of business in very short order by a small, efficiently run company.

It's all the laws that protect the fat-cat corporate culture (enacted by fat-cat's lobbyists) that allow this sort of thing to continue. E.G., all the laws that make it almost impossible for a small company to enter the insurance underwriting business. If the government just got out of the way, capitalism would work. Too many laws protecting the consumer & too many laws protecting the company (and frequently the principals of the company). All of this regulation does NOT equal true capitalism.
Ron Thomas (Ronsupercar)
Member
Username: Ronsupercar

Post Number: 470
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 9:11 am:   

Let's get this straight!! You mean to tell me if I wake up one morning and look out my window to find that my car was desintergrated by a Nuclear blast, I wouldn't be able to collect for my car..
I say we boycott them until they take that clause out of their policy..
Sean F (Agracer)
New member
Username: Agracer

Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 8:42 am:   

"Without trial lawyers you would be living in a hut outside the mansion of your master."

Lighten' up Francis. Even you would have to admit that while there is definite legitimacy to some lawsuits, too many are simply money hunts for the deepest pockets.

A local pharmacist in KC was recenly jailed for diluting cancer drugs. A lawyer for some of the victims admitted in a newspaper article the suit filed against the pharmaceutical companies was done simply b/c they had the most money and "someone has to pay". The drug companies were later dropped b/c the lawyer could not show they had any blame. It's lawyers like this that give all of them a bad name.

I'm no lover of the insurance industry. It just kills me that people don't actually READ what they sign.

Thanks for the Boxer comment. Nothing like a little hate to make the world a better place.

Arlie...

..you're right about the perks and such. But I think you will see a decrease in these types of things as time goes by. The decade of the '90s was definitly one of "excess". For some reason, everyone forgot their econ.101 class and thought it would last forever. Those perks, which really were a small piece of pie in the big picture of corporate profits and costs, were nothing when you're company is making 1000x that in revenue. Now that compainies are tightening their belts, and are relearning what goes up, must come down these types of perks will end.

This kind of stuff happened in the 1920's as well. We all know what happened to end that decade. It took 3-years to start recovering, and WWII to get the economy rolling again. While our economy is much more stable now then then (not saying it's good) it will still be this summer before things start to turn around. Everyone is waiting for the war, and all it's uncertainty to end before they start spending again.

Do you realize the big winners of the 20's were tech stocks! (Radio, electronics, etc..). Most of those firms did not reach 1929 stock prices again until the 50's.
DES (Sickspeed)
Intermediate Member
Username: Sickspeed

Post Number: 2479
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:19 pm:   

Wow, Arlie, that was pretty good... i couldn't have said that better, myself... Please, stop, i'd hate to agree with you on a regular basis... :-)
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie

Post Number: 825
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:18 pm:   

Agreed DES. It use to be that the "customer was always right". Nowadays, the corporate attitude seems to be, "the customer can be manipulated to do anything that is in the best interest of the corporation through clever marketing and doubletalk."

Matt Lemus (Mlemus)
Advanced Member
Username: Mlemus

Post Number: 2535
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:05 pm:   

Bird in a cage. That All I need
DES (Sickspeed)
Intermediate Member
Username: Sickspeed

Post Number: 2477
Registered: 8-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:04 pm:   

i have my tooth brush and some bleach and i'm gargling and brushing my teeth, right now, in fear of the bitter taste that will form in my mouth, when i say this: i agree with Arlie.

Ptooey! i can't believe i just said that...! :-)

i work for an insurance brokerage and deal with many carriers, extensively, on a daily basis and i find that when it comes to the customer/patient/client, etc, there's all these rules and regulations and an exorbitant amount of beaurocratic red tape that needs to scythed in order to get something done- but when it comes to that insurance company getting their money, they break out the titanium ginsu knives and start cutting away at everything in their paths, even just for what turns out to be a few bucks, sometimes...
In my opinion, the insurance companies are definitely part of the nazi regime that makes up corporate america and i have no tolerance for them, whatsoever... Capitalism is ok to an extent, but gone too far, it veers out of control, without concern for the very thing that keeps it going: the consumer.
BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member
Username: Bretm

Post Number: 3189
Registered: 2-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 9:19 pm:   

As far as I know, NJ has the highest insurance rates in the nation and the highest number of lawyers per population... coincidence?
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie

Post Number: 821
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 8:04 pm:   

Ric, I am well aware of the fact that most insurance policies do NOT cover acts of war. After 9/11, I frequently wondered why among the thousands of side issues discussed on the nightly news surrounding the terrorists attacks, not one report that I ever saw actually brought up the fact that insurance companies might have an OUT concerning payoffs due to the attacks by virtue of the fact that the attacks could be construed as ACTS OF WAR. Therefore, the companies would not have to pay. I wonder why some of those companies didn't try to weasel out of paying off by using that defense.

". If the state won't let them charge enough to make a profit, why stay in business?"

Your statement ASSUMES that in order to "stay in business" they must charge their customers high enough premiums in order to pay for the BIG BUCK salaries of their top executives. That's the little detail that those companies seem to conveniently forgot when discussing their "profit" margin. They always want to maintain the same level of profit AND be able to pay the BIG SHOTS their high dollar salaries. HEAVEN FORBID that those BIG SHOT CEOs might actually have to do without a brand new Cadillac or Mercedes Benz or a second country estate in order to allow that money to remain in the corporate account. ONCE AGAIN, the customer gets shafted for bigger premiums, while the BIG SHOTS continue to live their life of luxury. I'll wager my non-existant Ferrari that the BIG SHOT CEOs of every major insurance company in America live a lifestyle that is 100 times more lavish than their average customer will ever hope to attain.

As for corporate BIG SHOTS, wasn't it fairly recently that a guy named Welch, the former head of General Electric, tried to prevent his wife's attornies from gaining access to the records showing all the TRUE perks and payments that he was receiving as a retired GE executive? He was living like a king with enormous amounts of money being paid to himself in the form of apartment rentals, restaurant tabs, limousine rides, etc.

That's the kind of things that I think about when you hear some whining from a big corporation like insurance companies about not making enough profit. Perhaps if they didn't waste all their profit on extravagant spending, they wouldn't have to raise the cost of their product. But what do they really care about their little guy customers anyway.
Need I mention Enron, WorldCom, etc. Seems to always be the same old song and dance. When the profits are rolling in, the money goes straight into the BIG SHOT'S pocket. When the debt is rolling in, the money comes straight out of the LITTLE GUY'S pocket.




James Selevan (Jselevan)
Member
Username: Jselevan

Post Number: 409
Registered: 6-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 8:02 pm:   

Arlie - Ric's comments are accurate, however, there is a more fundamental flaw in your disdain for insurance companies. These companies do us a favor by spreading risk amongst a large number of policyholders. For one moment, assume there was no such thing. You would go to sleep each evening hoping that no one you love becomes ill, has an auto accident, sustains a house fire, earthquake, etc.

Now enter the insurance company. We all agree (those insured) that we will pay a little to protect us from catastrophe. If nuclear catastrophe were a possibility, then the insurance company would have to charge everyone a great deal more (premium) to cover that potential loss. The premium would no longer be attractive; we would all drop out of the policy, and the end of insurance.

It's not a question of fat cats making money. They deserve to make a profit. First, they create the infrastructure to sell and support insurance (requiring substantial risk capital) and second, they assume risk on a year-to-year basis should claims exceed premiums. Of course, the following year they raise premiums to cover the losses.

I support the concept of risk/reward. Go ahead, assume risk, provide a service that I desire, and I'll pay you sufficiently for you to profit.

Sorry for the diatribe.

Jim S.
Ken (Allyn)
Member
Username: Allyn

Post Number: 734
Registered: 10-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 6:53 pm:   

I find Ric's comments an unfortunate truth, and very well stated. That's just how it is; it's a price we pay for not being socialist or (rich) communist. So wake up, realize we worship money for better or worse, and if we all get nuked your house and Ferrari will not be your biggest concern anyway.
Ric Rainbolt (Ricrain)
Member
Username: Ricrain

Post Number: 498
Registered: 2-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 6:24 pm:   

Horsey, you sure don't know much about the insurance biz, do you?

First of all, every auto, home and business policy I've ever read contains language to the effect that "no coverage for any act of war, declared or undeclared", so that covers 99.8% of the nuclear threat anyway.

Secondly, the insurance companies are hugely regulated. The rates they're "allowed" to charge are set by the state. If the state won't let them charge enough to make a profit, why stay in business? If the company is too top heavy or inefficient, let them pull out. That leaves more room for others to come in and/or expand.

Capitalism will purify the system, if it's left alone. Unfortunately, some lawyers aren't patient enough, and grab cash at every opportunity. Home owners policies have been recently affect drastically by this, and all policies with medical coverage have been affected for years.

You really should learn to trust capitalism a little more.
Mike Procopio (Pupz308)
Junior Member
Username: Pupz308

Post Number: 132
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 3:53 pm:   

By the way, FWIW, I also got this adendum to my policy. It was so bizzare, I read the whole thing. It was a dual deal--said no coverage for Fungi (includes mold) or a. Nuclear Reaction; b. Radioation or radioactive contamination from any source; or c. The accidental or intentional detonation of, or release of radiation from, any nuclear or radioactive device.

So I guess with part c, if the US govt accidentally detonates a device and causes my paint to blister on my 308, State Farm won't cover it. I guess they're thinking that, in that case, the gov't would pay?

Ya gotta think about these things out here in New Mexco.


--Mike
Albuquerque
Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Intermediate Member
Username: Parkerfe

Post Number: 1831
Registered: 9-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 3:26 pm:   

Sean, so is John Ascroft your hero or something ? Without trial lawyers you would be living in a hut outside the mansion of your master. As a lover of the insurance industry, I hope you never get your Boxer.
Sean F (Agracer)
New member
Username: Agracer

Post Number: 25
Registered: 2-2003
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 3:19 pm:   

State Farm, and many other carriers no longer carry home owners policies in some states because those states have allowed trial lawyers to gouge the insurance company for a leaky fauces, claiming it caused mold (how damn hard is it to fix a leak, CALL A DAMN PLUMBER!!!). The mold has now caused me brain damage. Of course, lab rats have to EAT large quantities for it to effect them but that doesn't apply in my case.

Nuclean damage would be an act of War or Terrorism and if you read you policy, it probably already states you're not covered. I'm not sure why they would even need to clarify this. The should have just sent a letter to their policy holders reminding them of what THEY ALREADY SIGNED!!!

Of course, we live in a society where it's always someone elses fault and we should sue whomever has the deapest pockets to minimize our suffering.
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie

Post Number: 817
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 3:09 pm:   

I think the CRM-114 discriminator is damaged. Try entering the code OPE, POE, or the other 7 variations and see if it works.

Tim N (Timn88)
Advanced Member
Username: Timn88

Post Number: 2502
Registered: 6-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 3:08 pm:   

A nuclear explosion would burn the house down so fire would be the cause of the destruction of the house. If you were not in the house and survived, they better pay if you have fire insurance!
Jeff B. (Miltonian)
Junior Member
Username: Miltonian

Post Number: 144
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 2:55 pm:   

Poster boy for State Farm Insurance.Upload
Horsefly (Arlie)
Member
Username: Arlie

Post Number: 815
Registered: 5-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 2:49 pm:   

"Basically, a nuclear event is the type of situation that could threaten an insurance company's solvency," Johnson said. "

In other words, as long as the company is making fantastic profits that line the wallets of the CEOs, everything is cool. But if something comes along to actually require them to pay out some money, they want no part of it. That's what I love about insurance companies, the whole idea of insurance is based on a gamble. And the odds are in the favor of the insurance company, or they wouldn't be in business. So they rake in huge profits for years on end, then whine and threaten to go belly up if they have to pay up.

In case people were unaware, State Farm is no longer issueing home owner policies in some states because of the payouts that they had to make in those states due to storms, mold damage, etc.

Must be nice to be in the insurance racket where you can stack the deck in your favor, and then pull out of them game altogether when you start loosing a few hands.



Matt (Matt_lamotte)
Junior Member
Username: Matt_lamotte

Post Number: 205
Registered: 10-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 11:27 am:   

I can hear it now..."Nice ferrari but mine glows in the dark".
Jeff B. (Miltonian)
Junior Member
Username: Miltonian

Post Number: 141
Registered: 12-2002
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 10:55 am:   

What if the effects of nuclear radiation caused giant ants to roam the earth, and one of them picked up your Ferrari and went on a rampage? Hey, you could sell the story to Hollywood!
William Huber (Solipsist)
Member
Username: Solipsist

Post Number: 676
Registered: 9-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 8:39 am:   

I can see it now, "2003 Ferrari ENZO for sale, some nuclear blast damage, possible fixer upper. Clear title. Will take trades, lets deal! Not responsible for side effects of high cancer risk, skin loss, blindness, or possible death. New Auto Toy Store, FL"
Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member
Username: Future328driver

Post Number: 292
Registered: 12-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 8:20 am:   

Sorry....guess this should have been posted in O/T.
Ken Thomas (Future328driver)
Member
Username: Future328driver

Post Number: 291
Registered: 12-2001
Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 8:19 am:   

I know that this scenario is not a laughing matter, but this article caused me to chuckle. I think the last thing I would be worried about if the worst happened was an insurance claim on my car.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/02/26/state.farm.ap/index.html

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration