Insurance: Where am I going wrong?

[Steve Cassani]

Shopping for insurance on my Kirkham hybrid brought to light a factor that is not subject to competition among insurers. No insurer would issue coverage at values greater than those that already apply to the other car I own, a 2011 Mazda Miata. The policy that insures me while driving the Miata obliges the insurer to a maximum payment under Comprehensive Coverage of $150,000. Every potential insurer of the Kirkham required I provide them a copy of the policy on the Miata before they would state the terms of coverage to be applied to me while driving the Kirkham. They demand this information because the values to be written into the policy for the Kirkham would be the same as those that already apply to the Miata.

I asked of each insurer why the values must be the same for all the vehicles I own, regardless of the varying worth of the cars. After all, varied worth or value has a lot to do with the premium. I was told that, if I were found liable, an attorney for the driver whom I had injured would seek reimbursement at the rate of the most generous policy I have, irrespective of which car I was driving when we had the accident. Suppose the Kirkham is insured by HotCar and the Miata by JustaCar. While driving the Miata I am in an accident for which I am determined to be at fault. If the extent of coverage for Comprehensive is $150,000 for the Miata and $300,000 for the Kirkham, the injured party's attorney will seek reimbursement at a rate of $300,000. He will demand this payment of me by citing the corresponding value in the policy written by HotCar, the insurer of the Kirkham which was in the garage when the accident happened.

Apparently the key to understanding what is going on here is to recognize that I am common to multiple insurance policies. No auto insurer insures an auto. They insure me while I am driving the car whose VIN is specified in a policy. If I am found liable, any assets that are under my name become subject to collection. The insurance policy written to cover me while I drive the Kirkham is, for the purpose of understanding the extent of potential liability, just another asset. The VIN specified in a policy does not work to distinguish among the assets that are mine. So the liability I incurred while driving the Miata is satisfied by the injured party recovering $150,000 or $300,000. The attorney's obligation to his client will have him seek the maximum award allowed under state law and that would be $300,000, payable by me, hopefully through my policy with HotCar.

No where in this explanation does anyone tell me a court has actually awarded damages incurred in an accident involving one car after the court was made aware of the terms of a policy that applies to another car owned by the same driver. Maybe the attorney for the injured party simply demands payment of $300,000 and it's up to me to figure how to satisfy the claim. The court's concern ends with its determination of a reasonable award and here the court need hear nothing of the fact I own and insure two cars.

The implication of distinguishing among cars and not rates of maximum liability staggers when you picture yourself owning a collection of cars having varied market values and limited utility. This may be why car collectors rely less on coverage of each car by an insurer of classic cars and more on property insurance.

Several posters to this forum are well informed on insurance, how it works and more. So the mistakes I've made in my effort to understand why insuring multiple cars works as it does should be made clear before my confusion has spread.

[MRGEORGE077]

I have two different carriers ,one for the family cars and a different one for the toys. They both require me to carry the same limits of Liability coverage as well as does my umbrella carrier. I guess it's to be sure theirs not a gap in coverage, that I might be personal liable for. But maybe I am missing something here.

[twobjshelbys]

It is likely that the liability portions of the policies will be tied to each other, and in fact I'm not sure that I have duplicate coverage between our daily driver and the GT policies. The loss portion on the vehicle itself should not be tied to the personal liability portion. Have you checked with the Barrett Jackson (underwriteen by AIG Private Client Group) for a stated value policy on the Kirkham? The liability portion of my coverage on the GT was something like $230.

[blown871]

Are you maybe not... breaking out clearly the different portions of coverage and getting confused with them?
You referred to your Comp. coverage for a Miata being 150k. Comp coverage is usually 'other than collision. This being.. fire/theft/animal/vandilism. (Usually other than an impact with another object).
-
Are you referring or eluding to Bodily Injury Coverage? and does your state recognize UM/UIM coverage the same?

http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/stacking.html


Such coverag in in case the other party does not have adequate coverage for a bodily injury or no coverage at all.

Yes it gets... a bit muddled.

[Steve Cassani]

blown871 is correct to point to an error on my part, and not an inconsequential one. I should have been specific as to what each classic car insurer demands of me-a copy of the Declarations Page describing the limits of coverage on my 2011 Miata. They require this statement because no insurer will obligate themselves to coverage limits on the Kirkham which are greater than those already stated for the Miata. The relevant titles are: Liability Coverage, Medical Payments Coverage, Comprehensive Coverage and Collision Coverage. For each coverage, the classic car insurer will use the value already in force in the policy for the Miata. For example, the Declarations Page for the Miata states a maximum bodily injury limit of $250,000 for each person. The collector car insurer demands a copy of the Declarations Page because he will not write a policy for the Kirkham that limits the corresponding Liability Coverage to a value greater than $250,000. As best I've been able to understand this practice, it grows out of a concern that were the classic car insurer to write a policy with limits greater than those quoted for the Miata the insurer would put his underwriters at risk of paying the amount stated in the Kirkham policy to resolve a claim arising from an accident in another car I own, the Miata. Since the Miata policy is in effect, the risk is removed by writing a policy for the Kirkham that uses the same limits as those in the policy for the Miata.

"Yes, it gets... a bit muddled," and I cannot tell whether I am generating the muddle or it comes with the subject.

[MRGEORGE077]

Both limits need to be the same....

[Steve Cassani]

blown871'sw link to insurance stacking-a term new to me-is an eye opener. Montana allows insurance stacking. In my example of the accident in the Miata, the first $250,000 of an award to an injured party would be covered by the policy on the Miata. If the award were $300,000 and the policy on the Kirkham have this value as the limit to Liability Coverage, the $50,000 remaining to be paid by me would come from the policy on the Kirkham. I'll wait for blown871 or another poster to verify I'm working through this correctly but so far in the discussion it sounds as though this is exactly the situation providers of classic car insurance want to avoid.

[MRGEORGE077]

Originally Posted by Steve Cassani

blown871'sw link to insurance stacking-a term new to me-is an eye opener. Montana allows insurance stacking. In my example of the accident in the Miata, the first $250,000 of an award to an injured party would be covered by the policy on the Miata. If the award were $300,000 and the policy on the Kirkham have this value as the limit to Liability Coverage, the $50,000 remaining to be paid by me would come from the policy on the Kirkham. I'll wait for blown871 or another poster to verify I'm working through this correctly but so far in the discussion it sounds as though this is exactly the situation providers of classic car insurance want to avoid.

In Texas you would be cutting the 50,000 check. Otherwise why not have one car liability insured for 500,000 and all the rest insured for 50,000, It would work if the 500,000 carrier picked up any difference. Want happen.

[Rick Parker]

Insurance laws vary by state Steve. I can only speak for Calif. To simplify, the liability section (that pays for the others personal injury if you are at fault) would be required to be the same on all vehicles being driven that are covered by an individual policy. Property damage (the other guys car, home, bicycle, motorcycle etc, again if you're at fault). The fluctuating portion that can be in force or not is collision (on a per car basis) IE: one car may have it and the other not, same for comprehensive, towing, and some other minor coverages. The liability and Property damage portiond are covering the DRIVER not your carhence they are the same regardless of vehicle being driven. I used to suspend the collision coverage for the Winter months while the car was on jack stands in the garage and not being driven.

[mrmustang]

My coverage is higher on my collector cars than my daily drivers and I had no issues getting them quoted and/or written.

So I have to ask some specifics about your situation:

1: What is your driving record like?
a: Any tickets in the last 5 years? If so, for what?
b: Any accidents in the last 5 years?
2: Have you been sued in the last 5 years
3: Have you even been convicted of drunk driving?
4: Have you ever been convicted f vehicular manslaughter?

Finally, what companies have you approached about coverage of your Kirkham?

What coverage are you asking for?
Replacement value?
Appraised value?
An arbitrary number of your choosing?


Respond to the above and we can go from there.


Bill S.

[Steve Cassani]

1: What is your driving record like?-One speeding ticket in twelve years.
a: Any tickets in the last 5 years? If so, for what? - One, as above
b: Any accidents in the last 5 years?-None in fifty years
2: Have you been sued in the last 5 years-No
3: Have you even been convicted of drunk driving?-No
4: Have you ever been convicted f vehicular manslaughter?-No

On reading over the replies to my post I have to admit the confusion is mine. Rick and others have helped me to understand how a policy in force affects the coverages available in a requested policy. I could not understand why the classic car insurers demanded a copy of the Declarations page for the policy on the Miata. Now I see the coverages that apply to me distinct from those that apply to the car. That helps.

Mr. Mustang: I sold the Kirkham not six months from acquiring the car. My lower spine is fused in three places. The Kirkham hybrid presents a more skewed driving position than did the original cars and even an original puts a twist in my lower back that becomes intolerable after an hour or so. Once sore even walking for a hour will not allow me to resume driving for more than twenty minutes, at most. Its a sadly diminishing return and not just time in the car. The insurance was adequate for the time I had with the car; the interest that continues has to do with me getting a better understanding of how insurance works. This forum is a good place to go. Thanks!

[mrmustang]

Originally Posted by Steve Cassani

1: What is your driving record like?-One speeding ticket in twelve years.
a: Any tickets in the last 5 years? If so, for what? - One, as above
b: Any accidents in the last 5 years?-None in fifty years
2: Have you been sued in the last 5 years-No
3: Have you even been convicted of drunk driving?-No
4: Have you ever been convicted f vehicular manslaughter?-No

On reading over the replies to my post I have to admit the confusion is mine. Rick and others have helped me to understand how a policy in force affects the coverages available in a requested policy. I could not understand why the classic car insurers demanded a copy of the Declarations page for the policy on the Miata. Now I see the coverages that apply to me distinct from those that apply to the car. That helps.

Mr. Mustang: I sold the Kirkham not six months from acquiring the car. My lower spine is fused in three places. The Kirkham hybrid presents a more skewed driving position than did the original cars and even an original puts a twist in my lower back that becomes intolerable after an hour or so. Once sore even walking for a hour will not allow me to resume driving for more than twenty minutes, at most. Its a sadly diminishing return and not just time in the car. The insurance was adequate for the time I had with the car; the interest that continues has to do with me getting a better understanding of how insurance works. This forum is a good place to go. Thanks!

I was under the impression you were looking for coverage for a car you currently owned. I've assist others with difficult driving or health history in getting insurance for their Cobras in the past and was just trying to assist. Sorry for the confusion.........


Bill S.