Bad Insurance Agents

OK, I am catching up on my reading of the insurance information service, FC&S (National Underwriter Company).

A few minutes ago I blogged about bad adjusters.  Now its my turn to take a swipe at agents.

Here is the question asked:

A hit-and-run driver hit a car, which in turn was pushed into a building. The building and the personal property inside were damaged. The car was covered by uninsured motorists insurance, and the insurance company is paying for the car. However, the auto insurer will not pay for the building and personal property damage, stating that “as the driver was not in the car at the time of the accident and therefore we [the insurer] are not liable, the hit-and-run driver is.” The car caused the direct physical damage to the building, the hit-and-run driver did not hit or even touch the building. Wouldn’t the car insurance be responsible for the damages as the car hit the building, not withstanding it was unoccupied? 


The agent is asking about LIABILITY coverage.  Liability insurance responds when the insured is responsible for the damage or injuries caused.

Why would anyone think that a parked car is responsible for damage caused by another car?  Basically the agent is taking the position that there was an accident and the insurance should pay.  


There has to be liability before a liability policy will pay.  Insurance 101, day one – maybe hour two.

Of course if some lunatic court says that the parked car is responsible for the accident, then matters change.  The insurance policy does not have a lunatic court exclusion (that I have ever seen).