Furious with me and my insurance company

[Blrfl]

That's right: Ins. Co. accepted payment for 2.5 years' of coverage there was no way they could have provided. No recourse.

The insurance company was paid to insure a car, and that car was insured. The fact that the kid's parents didn't know they didn't need that insurance anymore isn't the insurance company's problem any more than it's your cable company's problem if you move and don't cancel your service.

The documents for every insurance policy I've ever held put the onus on me to inform the insurance company of there's a change that affects coverage and, therefore, my monthly premium.

 

[kuch]

I'm sorry that this has happened to you. In today's world, if you are doing business with someone, they send ALL of your correspondence to a place out near the sun where they broadcast it to the universe at large! I am most likely going to disconnect from my insurance company this year because they simply will not leave me alone. I am inundated with emails offering to hook me up with anything you can imagine to buy, and some I haven't and wouldn't have thought of.

My wife has always paid the bills, but the post office has become so unreliable in mail delivery, that I am trying to pay everything I can with a credit card. Some autopay some I have to pay every month. It's quite a job, I much preferred our old arrangement where my wife took care of everything.

Every time I say things used to be better someone says that isn't true. Well, it may be untrue for them, but for me, it is absolutely true.

Sorry OP, this is not related to your post.

Hey TD,

You should check out your bank's "Bill Pay" feature if they offer that. We have our bills set up on our CU's bill pay system and it lists your recurring bills and all you have to do every month is type in the amount you want to pay and hit send. it even lists your recent payments if you can't remember, like me, if you've paid this month or not. You can even add one time payments to almost anyone if you want.
It's really simple and IMO safer than using your credit card or the US mail.

 

[Mjark]

whenever insurance comes up I like to throw in a couple experiences. Hartford is the worst. they actually helped a guy commit fraud by paying his fraudulent claim against my wife. they did not look at the "damage" that was supposedly done to either car (they hit mirrors... neither broke), (it was a scam setup from the start). they did not ask me or my wife any questions, in fact they did not even contact me. they paid this guy 5k,

That’s way outside insurance regulation in any state. Did you report this to the insurance commissioner?

 

[Toto'sDad]

Sorry OP, this is not related to your post.

Hey TD,

You should check out your bank's "Bill Pay" feature if they offer that. We have our bills set up on our CU's bill pay system and it lists your recurring bills and all you have to do every month is type in the amount you want to pay and hit send. it even lists your recent payments if you can't remember, like me, if you've paid this month or not. You can even add one time payments to almost anyone if you want.
It's really simple and IMO safer than using your credit card or the US mail.

Thanks for the tip!

 

[Milspec]

Expecting a corporate insurance company (or any large corporation) to react in a human way is a little naive. To them, you are the account number on your policy, just one of millions. They simply followed their procedures to solve the matter, cold and out of touch, but that's corporations.

Had this been a local agent in your hometown, you would never receive that kind of treatment. At least not in a small town like I live in. Around here, that agent would have been at the funeral and handle this issue with a lot more compassion.

I guess that is why I moved back to the small towns...people actually know you by name instead of an account number.

 

[teletail]

I take it you’re not a widower? (I always questioned some decisions my dad made when he became a widower. 12 years later when I became a widower, I then understood completely)

My sympathies to @telleutelleme . I’d be PO’d too. The insurance company’s response wasn’t heart-felt, my guess is that response was a checkbox on a list that legal drew up.

I'm no friend of the insurance companies. I worked for one and they are the scum of the earth. They'd sell their mother for a nickel and they frequently break their own policies as well as the law.

Having said that, I don't think you should blame someone else for your mistake. And I'm not sure what the angst is, from multiple people, about an insurance company sending a pamphlet to someone who lost their spouse, offering advice on the grieving process. That sounds like someone trying to help.

 

[Toast]

I'm no friend of the insurance companies. I worked for one and they are the scum of the earth. They'd sell their mother for a nickel and they frequently break their own policies as well as the law.

Having said that, I don't think you should blame someone else for your mistake. And I'm not sure what the angst is, from multiple people, about an insurance company sending a pamphlet to someone who lost their spouse, offering advice on the grieving process. That sounds like someone trying to help.

Nobody needs a frickin' pamphlet; they need the insurance company to rectify an overcharge. If a client can prove they were truly overcharged (death certificate), then it's the responsibility of the business to return those funds. That's reasonable, not the other way around. A company is privileged to be allowed to do business and have customers. Any business that has no respect for their customers should have their business charter pulled.

The Time Tax

A six-month wait for unemployment insurance. A paperwork nightmare over an insurance reimbursement. Drug tests for cash benefits. Why is there so much red tape in American life?

www.theatlantic.com

 

[boris bubbanov]

The insurance company was paid to insure a car, and that car was insured. The fact that the kid's parents didn't know they didn't need that insurance anymore isn't the insurance company's problem any more than it's your cable company's problem if you move and don't cancel your service.

The documents for every insurance policy I've ever held put the onus on me to inform the insurance company of there's a change that affects coverage and, therefore, my monthly premium.

With kindest regards, have you ever stepped back and asked yourself why it should be this way?

I don't think the cable company should keep the overage, either. YMMV. The companies are there to serve the public. Not take advantage of them - rob them. My parents are 95 and 96 years of age, and it seems like my siblings and I are staving off some theft, every week. I think that the customer should not have to ride herd over these providers.

I know people who run retail stores, and they're subjected to these group/flash shoplifters. I don't know a good way to stop them, not even a Belgian Malinois. Except maybe, if the kinds of thefts these large service providers do, had never been allowed to happen, to sicken our sense of fair play in business, maybe the customer pushback would not have become grotesque like this.

 

[Chester P Squier]

Okay, all you married men and women of the TDPRI--there are tasks one of you performs that the other is probably not familiar with. Before you get too old, you need to learn what tasks your spouse does and your spouse needs to know what your tasks are. And how you do them.

In 2017, my wife's 80-year-old sister lost her 81-year-old husband. She apparently began leaning on her daughter for advice and guidance, because when the daughter became ill and died in 2019, she began leaning on my wife and me for every tiny little thing.

Her son got her a new laptop, since her old desktop had become slowing to a crawl. But once, she called us out to her house because "when I go to write and emall, the letters are too big." So we drive through the exurban sprawl to her house to find that she had brushed against the touch pad and had zoomed in. It wasn't the font size--she had simply zoomed in.

All kinds of little things.

I hope this isn't too far off topic. It's just that there are things you need to know in case your spouse dies. Balance the checkbook, do quicken or microsoft money. Know which bills are auto-paid and which you have to initiate paying, and if they come out of the checking account or if they are charged to a credit card. All sorts of things like that. And many more.

 

[effzee]

When my wife was alive, she handled the accounting, the money, the bills, my allowance. She also chose the insurance providers; including bundling home and auto. When she passed and I sold her car I removed it from our auto policy. Pretty much kept auto-paying the home and auto each month.

Started getting the usual ads for cheaper home and auto with some cost estimates. Home was the same but the auto was significantly cheaper, like 1/2. I started looking, found the policy online and noticed my wife was still listed as a driver on my truck. Oh damn forgot to take her off. Called them up, explained that she had passed a year ago, but was still listed. Lady said no problem we will take her off and you will get a refund for the remaining balance.

I in my simple mind said, can I apply the refund towards next years' insurance given I have been paying double for a whole year. The lady then explained they would only give me a refund for the month of notification and that amount would cover me for the rest of the year. I said I could provide any documentation needed to show she was not a driver during the whole year. Not an insignificant amount of money paid in. Nope that was their policy. Angry I hung up knowing I would not use them for next year.

So today in the mail I received an envelope with their "How to grieve" publication, full of information about dealing with a death in the family. To say this has made me even madder is an understatement. I won't mention the company name as I suspect they are all the same, but greed has an amazing way to show its ugly nature. Not sure how this "upon notification" rule is protecting them in any way.

Sorry had to rant on this.

Well I guess there's no right way to reply to this; you're just having a time however you look at it and there's no way anyone can really say anything to change that. You're a good guy and I think it's fine for you to vent and rant if it helps you.

I've had some seriously bad times where I lost my perspective and forgot my priorities, but these days, when things go south for me, I try to distance myself from the immediate issues and focus more on the "big picture". If there's a situation where I have absolutely zero chance of changing things, I cut my losses and move on.

That might just get you more upset, but it's not meant to

 

[Festofish]

I just love it when some corporation tells me how I should feel.

How the hell would they have any idea what I might be going through?

Geesh….what idiots.

I worked at a life insurance company. They had people picked out who were good with talking to and dealing with grieving customers. This particular business handles a lot of child life insurance so there’s a good chance it’s a parent calling. Not to defend the company you have insurance through but….it’s a small courtesy. On the other hand I’d call and threaten to move your business elsewhere unless you got that money back.

 

[Festofish]

Okay, all you married men and women of the TDPRI--there are tasks one of you performs that the other is probably not familiar with. Before you get too old, you need to learn what tasks your spouse does and your spouse needs to know what your tasks are. And how you do them.

Please! I’ve heard so many stories of wives and husbands left knowing nothing of the finances, insurances, and what have you. Especially if one is computer savvy and the other isn’t.

 

[Blrfl]

With kindest regards, have you ever stepped back and asked yourself why it should be this way?

Sure. With equally-kind regards, I'm an adult and believe that adults should understand the commitments they make and make good on them. If I ask a service provider to provide a service and they uphold their end of the bargain, it's my responsibility to do the same. If I goofed in asking them to provide the service, that's on me, not them.

Maybe that's old-fashioned, Silent Generation thinking passed on to my GenX self by my parents, but I'm sticking with that because it's the right thing to do. (Yikes, did I just channel Wilford Brimley?)

I don't think the cable company should keep the overage, either.

That means someone's getting stiffed for the costs the cable company incurs each month for each subscriber whether or not they ever turn on the TV. The monthly per-subscriber fee for ESPN alone is north of $7.00. Who gets to eat that? The cable company? The network? The production company who makes their shows? The poor schmoe who loves their craft and and is barely making ends meet in LA making a production assistant's salary? Seems to me that everyone in that chain did what they were responsible for except the customer.

The cable example is timely because mine is getting canceled next week after several months of not using it. I have no intention of trying to screw Verizon out of what they earned providing the service just because I didn't cancel it immediately. Doesn't matter if it was laziness or an oversight, it's still my problem.

The companies are there to serve the public. Not take advantage of them - rob them.

I think you're conflating companies with governments. The latter are pure, serve-the-public plays, or at least they should be. The former exist for financial gain. There's a subtle-but-important difference between "we serve the public" and "we sell a service to the public."

Calling this taking advantage, robbery or theft is disingenuous at best. OP's situation isn't any of that for the same reason Verizon doesn't owe me a refund on my cable service.

I think that the customer should not have to ride herd over these providers.

What would you propose? A monthly phone call to see if the service is still wanted? Requiring that services be explicitly renewed every month? They can do those things, but it's going to cost money because of the labor and other resources involved. Those costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the customers. Some of those customers will be all over the Internet complaining that they're adults and shouldn't have to pay extra to be treated like children even though that's exactly what they seem to want.

 

[Winky]

I'm so sorry for your loss but I don't understand why you're upset with your insurer. It was your (understandable) error not theirs. As for the pamphlet well, it shows they were listening.

Counterpoint: As his wife was clearly not driving during the period in question, forgetting to take her off is simply an administrative error with no real-world consequences to the insurance company. Their underlying risk profile is unaffected. (Their cost of reinsurance MAY have been affected in some way, but that's for them to have adjusted - the OP's contract is not with the reinsurance firm) The insurance company should recognize the error as trivial, and simply provide the full refund. The insurance company are simply being cruel and greedy. This is a natural consequence of them being an insurance company.

 

[Mjark]

Counterpoint: As his wife was clearly not driving during the period in question, forgetting to take her off is simply an administrative error with no real-world consequences to the insurance company. Their underlying risk profile is unaffected. (Their cost of reinsurance MAY have been affected in some way, but that's for them to have adjusted - the OP's contract is not with the reinsurance firm) The insurance company should recognize the error as trivial, and simply provide the full refund. The insurance company are simply being cruel and greedy. This is a natural consequence of them being an insurance company.

Retroactive changes to coverage is something they want to avoid trivial or not. It's a matter or precedent.

 

[getbent]

@telleutelleme the indignities of all the different conversations and emails and all that you have had to deal with just suck. I know it isn't just the money, it is just the 'whole thing'.

My wife's aunt, with whom we are very close, lost her husband a few years ago. We helped her with many of those kinds of details and issues and we are still unwinding some stuff and it is painful for her each time.

Just know you have friends here and your grief is real and the world is still a cruel and cold and unforgiving place... which is a drag.

 

[boris bubbanov]

The insurance company was paid to insure a car, and that car was insured. The fact that the kid's parents didn't know they didn't need that insurance anymore isn't the insurance company's problem any more than it's your cable company's problem if you move and don't cancel your service.

The documents for every insurance policy I've ever held put the onus on me to inform the insurance company of there's a change that affects coverage and, therefore, my monthly premium.

I've never practiced in Virginia (way too many lawyers in No. Virginia already) but in several states I checked, once the car is not the property of named insured, there's all kinds of defenses available to the insurance company, to weasel out of paying for any losses incurred by the new owners of the vehicle. I've handled way too many cases, where when there were multiples of policies being sued, the guys with the best policy defenses paid last/least or not at all.

So yes, the insurance people keep the money, and some other insurance policy will pay if there's a loss. Maybe you don't think this is theft. But I wonder.

 

[Winky]

Retroactive changes to coverage is something they want to avoid trivial or not. It's a matter or precedent.

I presume they'd be happy-enough to chase a retroactive administrative error if the result of correcting that error was in their favour.

 

[sax4blues]

Probably won't make any of this better, but insurance companies/contracts are very specific and regulated by the government with little leeway to just make adjustments.

The good part is everyone is treated equally. The bad part is we don't want to be treated equally.

 

[telleutelleme]

Thanks for all the comments. I believe each person argued their point honestly and without animosity. Pretty well been argued, lets just drop it and let this thread go away. My problem, my choice in how to resolve it.