"Marsha, like OMG, LMAO! U R...HELP!!!!!!"
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Did You Know Life Insurance Can Do This?
 | ||
| ||
I'm pleased to share this newsletter with you to keep in touch and pass along a few helpful tips. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss any of your insurance needs. Also, if you have questions regarding ways you can build your retirement assets or set up an effective retirement income flow, I can assist you. If you haven't scheduled an annual review yet, I encourage you to give me a call to get that set up so we can make sure all your goals are on track. Tony Koehler Koehler Froman Insurance Services, Inc. 403 Main Street Warsaw, IL 62379 awkoehler@gmail.com www.TonyKoehler4Life.com 217-919-0457 The information provided here has been taken from third party sources and is deemed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. It is provided for informational purposes only, and you should consult with a tax advisor for further information. Our organization does not provide tax advice. |
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Case of the Month: Insurer Not Obligated To Defend Homeowner in Property Dispute
Disputes between neighbors over property lines and encroaching fences are common events. Not so common is the use of an automatic rifle and threats of death by a homeowner in such a dispute. The 10th Circuit court recently affirmed a decision in Colorado finding an insurer did not have a duty to defend a homeowner against a lawsuit. The suit alleged that the homeowner made threats of violence and discharged an automatic rifle in the presence of the neighbor and their contractors constructing a fence on a disputed property line. The case is Browning v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19697 (10th Cir. Sept. 22, 2010).
The insured owned residential property on which the previous owner had constructed a fence. The fence, however, encroached on the neighbor's property. The neighbor sold his property and the new owner took action to remove the allegedly encroaching fence and reconstruct it on the true property line. The insured engaged in an extreme course of conduct which started with verbal barbs and escalated to the insured removing the neighbor's survey markers, stealing fencing materials, and threatening the neighbor with harsh verbal threats and by discharging an automatic rifle in his presence. After the neighbor complained to the sheriff, the insured pled guilty to felony menacing.
The insured eventually filed a quiet title action against the neighbor, and the neighbor filed a counterclaim for trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The jury determined the insured indeed owned the disputed property and that the relocated fence was an encroachment. Nonetheless, the jury also awarded the neighbor damages for the trespass and emotional distress claims.
The insured sought a defense and indemnity which the homeowners insurer denied based on the intentional and criminal conduct of the insured. The insured argued that the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and the trespass claim triggered coverage because neither claim necessarily involved intentional conduct. However, the court disagreed finding that the significant part of the neighbor's complaint was the egregious, intentional conduct of the insured, not accidental conduct which is required to trigger coverage under a homeowners policy.
This case reaffirms the principle that whether an insurer has a duty to defend an insured is not based on whether the complaint against the insured alleges injuries caused by an accident. Courts look to the complaint as a whole and not whether a single allegation, taken out of context, might by itself trigger coverage.
Go to Browning v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. for more details.
The case of the month summary was written by Patrick B. Omilian of Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Buffalo, New York.
The insured owned residential property on which the previous owner had constructed a fence. The fence, however, encroached on the neighbor's property. The neighbor sold his property and the new owner took action to remove the allegedly encroaching fence and reconstruct it on the true property line. The insured engaged in an extreme course of conduct which started with verbal barbs and escalated to the insured removing the neighbor's survey markers, stealing fencing materials, and threatening the neighbor with harsh verbal threats and by discharging an automatic rifle in his presence. After the neighbor complained to the sheriff, the insured pled guilty to felony menacing.
The insured eventually filed a quiet title action against the neighbor, and the neighbor filed a counterclaim for trespass, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and related claims. The jury determined the insured indeed owned the disputed property and that the relocated fence was an encroachment. Nonetheless, the jury also awarded the neighbor damages for the trespass and emotional distress claims.
The insured sought a defense and indemnity which the homeowners insurer denied based on the intentional and criminal conduct of the insured. The insured argued that the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress and the trespass claim triggered coverage because neither claim necessarily involved intentional conduct. However, the court disagreed finding that the significant part of the neighbor's complaint was the egregious, intentional conduct of the insured, not accidental conduct which is required to trigger coverage under a homeowners policy.
This case reaffirms the principle that whether an insurer has a duty to defend an insured is not based on whether the complaint against the insured alleges injuries caused by an accident. Courts look to the complaint as a whole and not whether a single allegation, taken out of context, might by itself trigger coverage.
Go to Browning v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. for more details.
The case of the month summary was written by Patrick B. Omilian of Goldberg Segalla, LLP, Buffalo, New York.
Buying Auto Insurance Online: A Wise Move?
From IRMI...
As an adjunct college professor, I have polled my risk management students over the past few years to see how many of them buy their auto insurance online. Each year, I find that an increasing number of them (but still a minority) are using the Web for this purpose and are having better luck completing the online application. Yet many of my students are still dissatisfied with the overall experience and often lack the proper coverage. So all this begs the question: Is it a wise move to purchase auto insurance online?
Here are some advantages.
* A consumer can often get multiple quotes using one insurance quote service. This approach is obviously quicker and more convenient than making numerous phone calls to insurance agents in a geographic area.
* If time is of the essence, going online may be the quickest method. When I recently went online to request an auto quote, it took me less than 10 minutes to receive it.
* The websites I visited appeared to be secure ones, with the URL beginning with "https," meaning that any sensitive information (e.g., Social Security number) will be encrypted before being sent to the server. The websites also included a "lock" icon near the window of the browser, which allows the potential insured to view the details of the site's security.
* Free quotes are typically "no obligation" ones, and if the insured chooses to purchase the coverage, he or she can print a temporary auto insurance ID card.
* Rates may be more competitive, due to the insurer's lower expenses with the Internet approach.
* Consumers normally have an option to talk to a live representative while completing the transaction.
There are also some significant disadvantages to consider.
* Some of the online questions/answers are deficient. One question asked for deductible information and the optional answers were nonsensical.
* A Social Security number is required for the full quote, leading to concerns about identity theft. It is one thing to provide this information to a reputable, local agent. It is quite another thing to provide it over the Internet to a relatively unknown source.
* Coverage details were lacking in the quotes I received. One website gave me three separate quotes, one for "less coverage," one for "standard coverage" ($4 extra per month), and one for "more coverage" (an additional $25 per month). No explanation of these terms was provided.
* There were no questions about any tailored auto insurance needs, such as endorsements on rental reimbursement or auto loan/lease coverage.
Buying auto insurance over the Internet may be the wave of the future, but this does not mean it is the best option. For people who insist on nontailored and bare bones coverage at the cheapest possible premium, it may be a valid approach. But until some of the weaknesses of this approach are remedied, the cons of buying auto insurance over the Internet outweigh the pros.
Copyright © 2010 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.
As an adjunct college professor, I have polled my risk management students over the past few years to see how many of them buy their auto insurance online. Each year, I find that an increasing number of them (but still a minority) are using the Web for this purpose and are having better luck completing the online application. Yet many of my students are still dissatisfied with the overall experience and often lack the proper coverage. So all this begs the question: Is it a wise move to purchase auto insurance online?
Here are some advantages.
* A consumer can often get multiple quotes using one insurance quote service. This approach is obviously quicker and more convenient than making numerous phone calls to insurance agents in a geographic area.
* If time is of the essence, going online may be the quickest method. When I recently went online to request an auto quote, it took me less than 10 minutes to receive it.
* The websites I visited appeared to be secure ones, with the URL beginning with "https," meaning that any sensitive information (e.g., Social Security number) will be encrypted before being sent to the server. The websites also included a "lock" icon near the window of the browser, which allows the potential insured to view the details of the site's security.
* Free quotes are typically "no obligation" ones, and if the insured chooses to purchase the coverage, he or she can print a temporary auto insurance ID card.
* Rates may be more competitive, due to the insurer's lower expenses with the Internet approach.
* Consumers normally have an option to talk to a live representative while completing the transaction.
There are also some significant disadvantages to consider.
* Some of the online questions/answers are deficient. One question asked for deductible information and the optional answers were nonsensical.
* A Social Security number is required for the full quote, leading to concerns about identity theft. It is one thing to provide this information to a reputable, local agent. It is quite another thing to provide it over the Internet to a relatively unknown source.
* Coverage details were lacking in the quotes I received. One website gave me three separate quotes, one for "less coverage," one for "standard coverage" ($4 extra per month), and one for "more coverage" (an additional $25 per month). No explanation of these terms was provided.
* There were no questions about any tailored auto insurance needs, such as endorsements on rental reimbursement or auto loan/lease coverage.
Buying auto insurance over the Internet may be the wave of the future, but this does not mean it is the best option. For people who insist on nontailored and bare bones coverage at the cheapest possible premium, it may be a valid approach. But until some of the weaknesses of this approach are remedied, the cons of buying auto insurance over the Internet outweigh the pros.
Copyright © 2010 International Risk Management Institute, Inc. (IRMI). All rights reserved.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
DEER-VEHICLE COLLISIONS ON THE RISE
A recent study cites November as the peak month for collision with deer, due in part to the fall breeding season.
Below are some tips on how to avoid hitting a deer. You should also be aware that damages caused by accidents with deer or other animals is not covered by the collision portion of an auto policy, but is covered
under the optional comprehensive portion.
Tips to Avoid Hitting a Deer (or minimize damage):
1. Always wear your seatbelt. Motorcyclists should always wear a helmet.
2. Deer are most active from sunset to midnight and during the hours
shortly before or after sunrise. Be especially attentive during these times.
3. When driving at night, use high beam headlights when possible.
4. Deer often travel in herds; if you see one, there are likely others nearby.
5. Do not rely on devices such as deer whistles, deer fences, and reflectors
to deter deer. These devices have not been proven effective.
6. Do not swerve out of your lane - this could lead to a more serious accident.
Below are some tips on how to avoid hitting a deer. You should also be aware that damages caused by accidents with deer or other animals is not covered by the collision portion of an auto policy, but is covered
under the optional comprehensive portion.
Tips to Avoid Hitting a Deer (or minimize damage):
1. Always wear your seatbelt. Motorcyclists should always wear a helmet.
2. Deer are most active from sunset to midnight and during the hours
shortly before or after sunrise. Be especially attentive during these times.
3. When driving at night, use high beam headlights when possible.
4. Deer often travel in herds; if you see one, there are likely others nearby.
5. Do not rely on devices such as deer whistles, deer fences, and reflectors
to deter deer. These devices have not been proven effective.
6. Do not swerve out of your lane - this could lead to a more serious accident.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)