I feel wronged by my insurance company but not sure what to reasonably ask for...

[tonymoo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

We have six cars insured in our name (not rich - worth about 65K in total) and 3 were destroyed by flooding last week and 1 was damaged. The two intact cars are a 15 year old Camaro and a 12 year old Excursion. Our insurance company is one of the top 5.

All damaged cars had full coverage including rental car and I have always played it completely honestly with my ins company as to who drives what.
My wife, I, and my 25 year old daughter have rentals. The problem is my 17 year old son. He is listed as the principal operator on the car he uses. No rental company will allow him to drive. At face value I would understand that, but my neighbor was allowed to rent a car for his kid (17 also). Eventually I got the rental company to explain that their minimum driver age is 21 but their agreement with my insurance company lowers that to 18 while they have contracts with some other top insurance companies that allow their customers to drive the rentals at 16 (like my neighbor). Of course, my insurance company is pointing the finger at the rental company saying it is all their policies. I even managed to get a supervisor from ins and a supervisor from rental and me on a 3-way call together. The result was the rental guy telling the ins guy that they need to negotiate a different agreement on the corporate level if they want 17 year old customers to drive disaster cars.

So this leaves me with the options of not having my 17 old drive for a few weeks (at least); letting him drive a sports car (NO!); or letting him drive the largest production SUV ever made (maybe).

My point is ins sold me rental coverage for a car with a principal operator that they knew would not be allowed to drive a rental.

I think I should be compensated but am not sure what to ask for.
- I don't think a refund of the rental coverage premium is sufficient ($50) because the loss did occur.
- Do I ask for the $30 per day and just say I will use it for paying people to drive him around?
- Do I let him drive the Excursion (8 mpg at this point) as his everyday car and ask the ins company to pay for fuel?

It isn't a huge amount of money (especially since I have about 50K of uninsured damage to my house) but it is wrong.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. If they are not willing to compensate me, is it reasonable to report this to the state insurance commissioner?

 

[Zigner]

You have no case. It's not the insurance company's fault that the rental agency won't allow a 17 year old to drive their vehicles.

 

[FlyingRon]

Agreed. The rental company said they'd reimburse rentals, not provide a rental. If you can't find anybody to rent to him, you might try asking the insurer if they'd cover cab fare or something instead, but there's no obligation that they do so.

Besides if the cars are totalled, it's unclear what rental reimbursement you'd be eligible for anyhow.

 

[tonymoo]

I would have accepted the answer that it is not the insurance companies obligation before finding out that they negotiated an agreement with the rental company to lower the age from 21 to 18 for replacement cars for their insureds but continued to sell rental coverage on cars driven by 17 year olds. That tells me they knew there is a problem and it is that fact that sits wrong with me.

 

[Zigner]

I would have accepted the answer that it is not the insurance companies obligation before finding out that they negotiated an agreement with the rental company to lower the age from 21 to 18 for replacement cars for their insureds but continued to sell rental coverage on cars driven by 17 year olds. That tells me they knew there is a problem and it is that fact that sits wrong with me.

That is not the only car that your son can drive.

 

[tonymoo]

Agreed. The rental company said they'd reimburse rentals, not provide a rental. If you can't find anybody to rent to him, you might try asking the insurer if they'd cover cab fare or something instead, but there's no obligation that they do so.

Besides if the cars are totalled, it's unclear what rental reimbursement you'd be eligible for anyhow.

They provide rental coverage until they pay they claim. With water above the hood, they know the cars are totaled, but with over 5000 cars in our county destroyed, claims will take a while.

 

[tonymoo]

That is not the only car that your son can drive.

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm not sure I understand the gist of your comment. Yes, as I said in the original post, I will probably let him drive the Excursion. He isn't allowed to drive any of the 3 rentals we do have. But even if I do let him drive the SUV or even the Camaro, I still am annoyed that ins sold me coverage they knew I wouldn't be able to use in the event of a loss.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm not sure I understand the gist of your comment. Yes, as I said in the original post, I will probably let him drive the Excursion. He isn't allowed to drive any of the 3 rentals we do have. But even if I do let him drive the SUV or even the Camaro, I still am annoyed that ins sold me coverage they knew I wouldn't be able to use in the event of a loss.

You complain that a rental car coverage isn't able to be used because your child is 17. However, whoever normally drives the excursion will be driving the rental. The rental coverage is able to be utilized.

 

[tonymoo]

You complain that a rental car coverage isn't able to be used because your child is 17. However, whoever normally drives the excursion will be driving the rental. The rental coverage is able to be utilized.

Sorry. I wasn't clear. We have 4 drivers and six cars. Nobody normally drives the more than a decade old Excursion (or the Camaro). It is a huge diesel beast that we only take out for family vacations or to go to Ikea (etc..). It gets 8 mpg and generates weird smells
It also only has liability coverage.

So nobody can use the 4th rental coverage.

 

[Zigner]

Sorry. I wasn't clear. We have 4 drivers and six cars. Nobody normally drives the more than a decade old Excursion (or the Camaro). It is a huge diesel beast that we only take out for family vacations or to go to Ikea (etc..). It gets 8 mpg and generates weird smells
It also only has liability coverage.

So nobody can use the 4th rental coverage.

Sorry - but you have no case against the insurance company.

 

[tonymoo]

Sorry - but you have no case against the insurance company.

OK, based on your comments from which I am inferring that they didn't do anything wrong, I will be in "nice" mode when I try to get something out of the ins company. Thanks.

 

[HighwayMan]

I'm sure it's not critical that your seventeen year old be able to drive himself around.

If it is then he should use one of the vehicles you have that's available - like the Excursion. He'll have to make do with the smell and paying for the gas.

 

[tonymoo]

I'm sure it's not critical that your seventeen year old be able to drive himself around.

If it is then he should use one of the vehicles you have that's available - like the Excursion. He'll have to make do with the smell and paying for the gas.

HighwayMan, I totally get that this isn't a world shaking problem - OMG the kid is going to have to drive an old SUV for a few weeks - quick call FEMA or the Red Cross for help to relieve the suffering. I know how it sounds.

I accept the opinions that the ins company is not in the wrong legally - that's what I posted for and what I received - 2nd time in a year the forum has helped me out.

And Highwayman, I never said it was critical or that I didn't have a solution, but I still feel bad because what did I pay the $50 premium for? Either I am a fool for not checking out the usefulness of the coverage in my case or the ins is jerks for selling it knowing (because they negotiated an exception down to 18) it couldn't be used or some combination of the two.

 

[Zigner]

HighwayMan, I totally get that this isn't a world shaking problem - OMG the kid is going to have to drive an old SUV for a few weeks - quick call FEMA or the Red Cross for help to relieve the suffering. I know how it sounds.

I accept the opinions that the ins company is not in the wrong legally - that's what I posted for and what I received - 2nd time in a year the forum has helped me out.

And Highwayman, I never said it was critical or that I didn't have a solution, but I still feel bad because what did I pay the $50 premium for? Either I am a fool for not checking out the usefulness of the coverage in my case or the ins is jerks for selling it knowing (because they negotiated an exception down to 18) it couldn't be used or some combination of the two.

You're not getting it. It CAN be used. Your situation is beyond the "norm", though. Think about it. What if kiddo's car (and only kiddo's car) had been damaged and you wanted to utilize the coverage? Kiddo could use one of the other five vehicles while one of the other three drivers uses the rental.

 

[LdiJ]

HighwayMan, I totally get that this isn't a world shaking problem - OMG the kid is going to have to drive an old SUV for a few weeks - quick call FEMA or the Red Cross for help to relieve the suffering. I know how it sounds.

I accept the opinions that the ins company is not in the wrong legally - that's what I posted for and what I received - 2nd time in a year the forum has helped me out.

And Highwayman, I never said it was critical or that I didn't have a solution, but I still feel bad because what did I pay the $50 premium for? Either I am a fool for not checking out the usefulness of the coverage in my case or the ins is jerks for selling it knowing (because they negotiated an exception down to 18) it couldn't be used or some combination of the two.

Honestly dad, what most families do in a situation like yours is that they trade around cars so that the adults are driving the rentals and the minors are driving cars the family owns. So, that rental car coverage is needed and used. Most families don't have any extra cars.