Quote:
Originally Posted by alexiskai
I agree, the double coverage and potential for passing the buck is what I specifically want to avoid.
|
Colin, I have actually encountered this in my work with customers who had a casualty claim. Passing of the buck is not done. If anything, they are all too excited that you had double coverage. The only thing that makes this unlawful is if you try to make two claims without the other insurer's knowledge to collect additional monies.
What I have noticed is the insurer with the oldest date on their policy typically takes the lead (-ie: sends the adjuster, asks the questions, sends all the forms). The way I understand it, they typically subrogate to the other insurer for their percentage of the claim. Where we typically see double coverage done is when someone has a car that they need 'XX' amount of coverage and the insurer will only go maybe 60% or so on agreed value. I don't know how that is handled on total-loss claims though. These would be questions for the underwriter.
On a side-note, it seems the industry has begun to swing more to Values established by the total amount of the purchase price and proof of parts purchased. In other words, for a fine-point Roadster that is purchased for $5k and most of the parts were restored by the hobbyist instead of purchasing repro is more difficult to get a fair-market value. In the example of my shop where 90% of the costs for a restoration is billed as labor, it is even more difficult. To make this even more understandable (???), suppose on my invoice I list 40 hours @ $100 per hour to completely rebuild and assemble an engine, and I also list $1,000 of parts used. This totals $5k. In this scenario, they will use the $1k for parts to establish a value but not the $4k of labor. On the other hand, if I were to list $6,500 for 'Complete Rebuilt Engine' in the parts section, the value will be increased by the $6,500 instead of the $1k. So for me, if on the invoice I list each component (steering column, rear end assy., front axle assy., brake system, etc) as an inflated, -but realistic number, it increases the value to the Insurer instead of listing all of the labor it took along with parts.
As far as a policy that does not carry liability, I would think a museum would be the one to get a second opinion on. Typically their vehicles are on static display without the need for a liability policy.