State Farm canceled me today

[tcope]

Blame that on politicians. Absent their interference, no seller can force anybody to buy something he doesn't want to buy.

This is what people say... until someone hits them without the means to pay.

 

[Lon Denard]

This is what people say... until someone hits them without the means to pay.

Fair point! Except in that scenario, you'd have no one to blame but yourself. I've had PLPD car insurance and have it on my motorcycle right now. I've decided that my bike isn't worth $1,000 a year in insurance so I take my chances. Besides, the gov't doesn't force you to carry full coverage, they only require you to have basic liability to drive on public roads. You can buy and not insure all the cars you want, you just won't be able to get plates or drive them on public roads.

 

[jmitteco]

I asked about this point in particular when I signed up with State Farm in October.
If you make a claim in the first year of your policy, the will probably cancel your coverage, I believe it's for 12 to 24 months from payout.

 

[RolandW]

This is what people say... until someone hits them without the means to pay.

But if you're afraid of that, then you can buy insurance to cover a loss caused by an uninsured driver. Just as with State Farm's Personal Articles Policy on a drone, you voluntarily contract with the insurance company to pay your loss in accordance with the terms of the policy. If you like the deal they're offering, take it. If you don't, then don't. That's how economic liberty is supposed to work.

 

[RolandW]

Allstate dropped me after a no fault accident. They taketh your money and dropeth after a claim.

But they paid the claim, didn't they? In other words, they performed in accordance with the contract they had with you, just as State Farm did with the OP's drone. And if they cancelled your policy before its term was up, I'll bet they even gave you a refund for the time remaining on the policy. That's called unearned premium. You only pay for the days when they are covering you; i.e., earning your premium.
The freedom to associate necessarily includes the freedom not to associate. If people want drone insurance cost to go the way of health insurance, just clamor for a law that forces insurance companies to keep your policy no matter what.

 

[tcope]

But if you're afraid of that, then you can buy insurance to cover a loss caused by an uninsured driver. Just as with State Farm's Personal Articles Policy on a drone, you voluntarily contract with the insurance company to pay your loss in accordance with the terms of the policy. If you like the deal they're offering, take it. If you don't, then don't. That's how economic liberty is supposed to work.

So people are against being required to pay for insurance. I mention, until they get hit by someone without insurance and you answer is, people can by insurance to address this? So a person is required to buy insurance to protect themselves against people who don't think they need to buy insurance. That solves that problem.

Also, your prior post was about liability insurance, not 1st party coverage.

("Blame that on politicians. Absent their interference, no seller can force anybody to buy something he doesn't want to buy.")

No politician requires that you have 1st party coverage.

Edit: I agree that the requirement should be as lower as possible though. However (and I don't want to get too off topic) limits like $5,000 in California are simply way too low. BTW, I can't figure out how California politicians can mandate everything in their state but someone manages to keep vehicle liability limits down to $5,000.

 

[tcope]

Fair point! Except in that scenario, you'd have no one to blame but yourself. I've had PLPD car insurance and have it on my motorcycle right now. I've decided that my bike isn't worth $1,000 a year in insurance so I take my chances. Besides, the gov't doesn't force you to carry full coverage, they only require you to have basic liability to drive on public roads. You can buy and not insure all the cars you want, you just won't be able to get plates or drive them on public roads.

As you mentioned, the government does not force you to have 1st party coverage... so this is not related to the post I was commenting on. That poster did not like that that insurance was mandated.

("Blame that on politicians. Absent their interference, no seller can force anybody to buy something he doesn't want to buy.")

So my comment has nothing to do with 1st party coverage.

 

[RolandW]

I mention, until they get hit by someone without insurance and you answer is, people can by insurance to address this? So a person is required to buy insurance to protect themselves against people who don't think they need to buy insurance.

If by "required" you mean forced, that's not true. I did not say a person should be forced to buy it. I said you can buy it if you're worried about the threat of uninsured drivers. Your choice.

Also, your prior post was about liability insurance, not 1st party coverage.
("Blame that on politicians. Absent their interference, no seller can force anybody to buy something he doesn't want to buy.")
No politician requires that you have 1st party coverage.

I didn't say politicians required first-party coverage. My comment was about insurance in general – actually, about goods in general. When there is no law about it, consumers can buy or not buy whatever they want, and producers can sell, not sell – or sell and then stop selling – to you as they see fit. Many people think that mortgage companies force people to have homeowner's insurance, but they do not. Yes, you can say they "require" it, as they most likely will choose not to do business with you (lend you money) if you don't have it. But that's not the same thing as force. When politicians require something, it means they'll fine you or throw you in jail if you don't do it. Big difference.
The relevant thing, as you have done a good job pointing out, is that an insurance policy is a contract, and in the case of the OP, State Farm held up its end of the deal. I'm simply adding, in response to other comments and at the risk of straying off-topic, that in order for insurance to work well, the contracts have to be voluntary, not forced or price-controlled.

 

[dewster]

They taketh your money:

Aetna investigated after stunning admission

Lol

 

[Brojon]

I'm not sure you really are considering how insurance works and what it is. Here is the other side of the story.

Ok - here's another side of the story.
Insurance is required to have liquid assets to cover any foreseeable losses. Period.
Insurance is at its heart gambling with actuaries stacking the odds in favor of the house.
Hurricane Andrew plows through southern Florida causing a lot of damage.
Those folks were covered and had paid claims for a long long time.
So anyway, the insurance companies come crying to Uncle Sam that they can't cover the catastrophic losses.
Wah!
So the taxpayers had top make up the difference.
Now - who do you reckon owns the biggest baddest and most expensive high rises in all major US cities plus a bunch in other countries.
Insurance companies. Personally I'd have made them put up a few on the market to pay their obligations.


First look: the Perimeter's sexy State Farm HQ in photos

 

[Bongohutch]

While I can’t dispute your logic ... your not actually defending the insurance industry?!?!?
Despite what their commercials tell me .. they don’t care about me, or mine. Claim denial is SOP and their certainly not worth defending.
State launches Aetna probe after stunning admission - CNN

I mentioned this in a post but it was some time ago. If this was the only item on the policy State Farm _should_ cancel the policy once the item has been paid for. Let me explain...

You obtained a policy for (I'll make up the number) $1000 worth of coverage for $60. You filed a claim and the company paid $1000. They have now fulfilled the terms of the policy. So it should be terminated. It makes no sense for them to then give you another free $60 for another $1000 worth of coverage. Make sense?

So, the policy may not have been cancelled because they no longer want the risk (though, that is possible), it may have been cancelled and the policy ran it's course. I recommend that you contact your agent and ask about this.

 

[tcope]

Ok - here's another side of the story.
Insurance is required to have liquid assets to cover any foreseeable losses. Period.
Insurance is at its heart gambling with actuaries stacking the odds in favor of the house.
Hurricane Andrew plows through southern Florida causing a lot of damage.
Those folks were covered and had paid claims for a long long time.
So anyway, the insurance companies come crying to Uncle Sam that they can't cover the catastrophic losses.
Wah!
So the taxpayers had top make up the difference.

If you can post a link to this bailout, I'd like to take a look at it.

What happened in a lot of cases is that insurance companies went insolvent and the government paid those claims. This happened with 9 carriers. When your company goes bankrupt, that is not a bailout of any kind. None of those carriers asked for anything. What happened afterward was many carriers refused to write some business in Florida (can a company choose what risks it wants to take on?) and the State told them that they could not do this... it was an all or nothing deal. That is, you are forced to write some business if you want to write any business.

 

[tcope]

Despite what their commercials tell me .. they don’t care about me, or mine. Claim denial is SOP and their certainly not worth defending.

That is marketing and is 99% a lie. Show me marketing that is not. Do you really believe those ads?

Edit: I know very little about medical insurance (I can't even figure out my own). But I have no doubt that the title of the article you linked to happened. No doubt at all. As I said, things like that happen all of the time. It's not what I'm discussing at all. I'm discussing the right to refuse to underwrite a risk.

 

[ac0j]

My Father was a claims attorney (back when they actually used attorneys to fight claims)

He always told us that Insurance is just legal gambling. You are betting something bad is going to happen, and the insurance company is betting it wont. To stay in the black, the house must always win, (as said in an earlier post) So when the odds are not in their favor any more, they choose not to play with you any further. That makes perfect sense as far as business goes.
So, If you buy the insurance, make a claim or two and get paid, they have met their obligation, thats it.
They do not HAVE to insure anyone, or anything if they feel it is not a good risk. In most cases when people get dropped, they have proven to be a bad risk over a short term or over a long term. And that these people will continue to make more claims that premiums could ever cover. If they continue to cover the 2 mavic a year guys for $60, where do you think the $2000 they pay out comes from???? Those of us that are NOT a risk. Thats why the insurance is so expensive.

 

[tcope]

My Father was a claims attorney (back when they actually used attorneys to fight claims)

Depends on the type of business but trust me... they are hired all of the time. Even for smaller property damage claims. The big carriers use them for recovery and simply pay a yearly fee. But, yes... there is less of a return on fighting claims just because the court system is set up to favor plaintiffs.

He always told us that Insurance is just legal gambling. You are betting something bad is going to happen, and the insurance company is betting it wont. To stay in the black, the house must always win, (as said in an earlier post) So when the odds are not in their favor any more, they choose not to play with you any further. That makes perfect sense as far as business goes.

I'd say yes and no. Yes, the company is betting that they write good risks and make money. But this also means the risk is spread out. Some people won't get paid but others will. However, it's also not like gambling and this is where people think about it wrong. If you pay State Farm $60 a year and never crash your drone you could look at it like gambling and say you lost. But you really did not. You paid $60 for the piece of mind that _if_ you crashed, you'd get a new drone. So it's $60 for that piece of mind. I think most of us would agree... it would be worth it (considering that $60 really would cover 2 or 3 drones). I just bought a portable hard drive for reading my SD card in the field. $150. Insurance on it was $2.10 for 4 years with no deductible. What do I care if I never have to file that claim... it was 25 cents a year for knowing I'd not need to pay $150!

Just my 2 cents on that.

 

[Swanee]

I was unclear on the nature of the claim. Did your drone damage another's property, or did you claim damage to your drone. If the latter, I am double surprised. I too have State Farm, but also a $3000 deductible. What did you hit?

 

[tcope]

I was unclear on the nature of the claim. Did your drone damage another's property, or did you claim damage to your drone. If the latter, I am double surprised. I too have State Farm, but also a $3000 deductible. What did you hit?

The OP has a Personal Article Policy with State Farm that only covers damage to the drone itself. Your policy is something else (homeowner or renters probably). The policy is $60/year and has no deductible. They would not renew the OP as he filed a $1000 claim on a $60 policy in less then a year.

 

[Classic flyer]

Put what you're paying for insurance in a savings account , faithfully as if you were paying for insurance , and you will be amazed at how much $ you'll have when needed...and you get to keep the interest

 

[tcope]

Put what you're paying for insurance in a savings account , faithfully as if you were paying for insurance , and you will be amazed at how much $ you'll have when needed...and you get to keep the interest

The OP of this thread paid $60 and would have been paid about $1000. Lon paid $60 and was paid around $2000. How would this have worked out for them? No too well. I mentioned this above, insurance is not a dollar for dollar thing. It's for piece of mind that you won't need to come up with thousands of dollars all at once if you have a loss. So even if you don't file a claim, you are getting something. Yes, you could see this as just a "glass half full" point of view but it is accurate and, I think, the best way to consider the situation. Not paying for coverage and putting money in the bank if not always the best way to go. In this case you'd need to not suffer a drone loss for 16 years before you even broke even. 16 years of worry that you could crash/suffer a theft and lose $1000.

 

[copterbob]

I mentioned this in a post but it was some time ago. If this was the only item on the policy State Farm _should_ cancel the policy once the item has been paid for. Let me explain...

You obtained a policy for (I'll make up the number) $1000 worth of coverage for $60. You filed a claim and the company paid $1000. They have now fulfilled the terms of the policy. So it should be terminated. It makes no sense for them to then give you another free $60 for another $1000 worth of coverage. Make sense?

So, the policy may not have been cancelled because they no longer want the risk (though, that is possible), it may have been cancelled and the policy ran it's course. I recommend that you contact your agent and ask about this.

There is never any loyalty between an insurance carrier and the insurers. I guarantee it.