So I got a statement today from Progressive. This statement was my “Insurance Customer Bill of Rights”. Basically, it states when an insurance company can raise rates, raise your deductible, claim timelines, as well as a list of occurrences when insurance companies cannot refuse to renew your policy.
Typically I would just toss this in the trash, but I’ve gotten better at reading things like this just to see if something crazy has been thrown in. Well, I think I found something crazy that was thrown in.
On the back of the last page, it talks about Not-At-Fault claims. This section states your insurance company cannot refuse to renew your policy solely because of any one of the following:
1. damage from hail, wind, flood, or the like
2. Accidents or claims involving damage by contact with animals
3. Accidents or claims involving damage caused by flying gravel, missiles, or other flying objects.
Now hold on. If I’m not mistaken, missiles in insurance lingo means flying objects. But it specifically states flying objects right after. So in this case, I don’t think missiles means flying objects. Are they actually talking about missiles used in war? If they are, what is going on here in the USA that insurance companies know that makes them think a vehicle getting hit by a missile is an actual possibility?
What say you? If they really did just mean flying objects then why state flying objects right after stating missiles?
Typically I would just toss this in the trash, but I’ve gotten better at reading things like this just to see if something crazy has been thrown in. Well, I think I found something crazy that was thrown in.
On the back of the last page, it talks about Not-At-Fault claims. This section states your insurance company cannot refuse to renew your policy solely because of any one of the following:
1. damage from hail, wind, flood, or the like
2. Accidents or claims involving damage by contact with animals
3. Accidents or claims involving damage caused by flying gravel, missiles, or other flying objects.
Now hold on. If I’m not mistaken, missiles in insurance lingo means flying objects. But it specifically states flying objects right after. So in this case, I don’t think missiles means flying objects. Are they actually talking about missiles used in war? If they are, what is going on here in the USA that insurance companies know that makes them think a vehicle getting hit by a missile is an actual possibility?
What say you? If they really did just mean flying objects then why state flying objects right after stating missiles?
Comment