Got to love some peoples nerve

[Dave70968]

This is the way auto ins. should work. Your ins. pays for your car to be fixed and no one elses. So if you hit someone with no ins. they are sol .

This is absurd. The whole purpose is to ensure that you can cover the damages you cause. If you hit somebody else, you should pay to make him whole. Carrying insurance is a way of making sure you can pay to make good. You should never leave somebody else SOL for damages you cause.

 

[inactive]

Lots of misinformation in this thread.

1) The adjuster submitted what is called a Risk Advice. While routinely working the claim, they notice a potential hazard that may affect the policy rating or ability to be insured. This is sent to underwriting, who is to investigate the matter.

2) An insurance company has a right to discriminate by all kinds of factors, including potential liability risks (the dogs). If you don't like them, I would simply switch. I would shy away from fighting this before your non-renewal in enforced, and contact agents of Farmers, All State, State Farm (try a different agent), Farm Bureau, Liberty Mutual, Met Life etc... and see what they can do. Even try some independents.

3) The insurance commissioner is Kim Holland, so she would be calling. And really, an insurance company reserves rights to rate risks based on underwriting inspections (see the above), so I doubt the Commissioner would do much. You have the employee asserting the dog was aggressive. That may or may not be true but they have that as a fact on record, so it would be difficult to dispute.

4) Large insurance companies domiciled our of state would not much about something like this. I imagine they will tell Scott Hines to go pound sand.

5) The issue here is about the underwriting, not the claim. Information relative to the property was found wil working the claim, but the property damage claim is really unrelated to the liability underwriting hazards.

6) This is not a bad faith "claim" as some mentioned. This is not bad faith at all, as they in fact paid the property damage claim. They in fact are non-renewing you as they believe you committed bad faith by misrepresenting what you are insuring (you completed an application stating you did not have aggressive dogs, and the insurance company later found them). If information is found to be incorrect, then perhaps they will redact the non-renewal and consider you insurable. But they acted on information they believed to be accurate and thus it would be difficult to prove bad faith. I doubt you will receive any financial judgment on this, as it does not appear you suffered any damages (special or general) to date. And if no bad faith is proved then no punitive damages are to be awarded.


Again, I am not trying to vilify your dogs or you here. But you are going down a long road that really isn't worth the trouble. I would just seek insurance from a different provider and be done with the matter.