Originally Posted by kayess (Post 1308728)

I have the policy printout stating i have Full Coverage, but Progressive is denying all possibility of me having that. I just faxed that information over to them. If that was sent incorrectly to me, i believe that's their fault because i recall signing up for full coverage. Now will they honor that? I doubt it, will the court be in my favor? Hopefully....

Like PapoZalsa said, its a requirement to my knowledge.

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1308711)

Back up a sec...

On my auto insurance policy, the first page is the declaration page. It clearly defines what the policy is, what the limits are, and what it covered. There's no fine print about it. They send me a new one every 6 months. Proving "comprehensive" or "other than collision" coverage is a simple matter. The company has a record of it, I have a record of it. Damage due to fire/theft/flood is not in the "fine print", it's in the coverage description in big bold letters under the heading "Comprehensive Coverage - What is covered". This isn't a case of Progressive trying to get out of coverage by "redefining" what is covered, it's a matter of whether the OP actually bought the coverage.

It's true that most finance companies/banks, and leasing companies require some sort of comprehensive coverage, but not all do, and they don't always check, and if they do they often miss stuff like that.

Everybody wants to jump on the insurance company here. I'm no big fan either and I'm very sympathetic to the OP's loss, but his difficulty in coming up with proof of comprehensive coverage is telling. Most current declaration page. It's all he needs. Or all they need.

Originally Posted by PapoZalsa (Post 1308722)

No financial institution will let you go without FULL COVERAGE insurance on your car. So in this case must be a big misunderstanding in paperwork by somebody.

All financial institution will check your insurance coverage and will let the owner know if he is not in compliance with the terms of FULL COVERAGE, becasue it happened to me before and I had to call the insurance company for them to fix there mistake.

Originally Posted by kayess (Post 1308728)

I have the policy printout stating i have Full Coverage, but Progressive is denying all possibility of me having that.

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1309622)

Doesn't your local agent have a copy of your declarations page? He should...

Walk on into the office. Ask to see it.

Originally Posted by kayess (Post 1309887)

I never knew there was a local office for them, but i found out something interesting, my other 2 cars have the same policy options and were done at the same time, i kind of find it fishy that those 2 cars pull up fine but randomly this one isn't full coverage?

Originally Posted by nmjaxx9 (Post 1309994)

Usually when you talk to your insurance agent to add a car onto your insurance, they will ask you what kind of coverage you want, it could be possible that you declined full coverage at that time.

Originally Posted by kayess (Post 1309887)

I never knew there was a local office for them, but i found out something interesting, my other 2 cars have the same policy options and were done at the same time, i kind of find it fishy that those 2 cars pull up fine but randomly this one isn't full coverage?

Originally Posted by PapoZalsa (Post 1310007)

The bank will tell him to get Full Coverage or they will do it themself and add it to the car monthly payments.

Originally Posted by semtex (Post 1310781)

This story is making my stomach turn. kayess, you have my heartfelt sympathies and I commend you for staying so calm.

Originally Posted by kayess (Post 1310806)

Thanks semtex!

I keep getting the weezy sick feeling in my stomach when i think about the car...what makes it worst is when i wake up in the morning and the first thing i see are those volks sitting in my room....=/

Still no word from Progressive, waiting for my sister to come back in country next week to get more lawyer details and update. Someone was telling me to file a class act against the park and ride authorities for my loss and see if there are others who are in the same situation. I don't know how that would work out.

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1310941)

How is your car damage the fault of the people who own the parking lot?

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1310941)

How is your car damage the fault of the people who own the parking lot?

Originally Posted by semtex (Post 1310960)

I think one would have to prove that it was designed/built with improper drainage or something like that. Not saying I agree with suing the owners of the lot. Just saying that as far as proving liability/negligence goes, this is the only possibility that comes to mind. I doubt it'd stick though.

Originally Posted by Pushing_Tin (Post 1311194)

Twitter and Facebook are your friend. These companies HATE negative social media, I have had very good luck using this tactic in the past year or two. Granted this was for $100 items, but I was still shocked at how fast they wanted to quell the negative comments.

You can also try going through websites like jalopnik, autoblog, truthaboutcars.com etc and see if they could run a story about it. Even just threatening to go to them make get you some positive action from Progressive.

Originally Posted by nmjaxx9 (Post 1310690)

Obviously they didn't cuz he's getting screwed over now for it.

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1311305)

What if the insurance company is right, and the OP never did buy the comprehensive insurance that would cover him for flooding? I mean, they say he didn't (so far) and he can't prove otherwise. Presumption that he had comprehensive on the basis of his finance company requiring it isn't conclusive because they do make mistakes.

If he can't find his current declarations page, and he doesn't trust the insurance company's copy of the declarations page, and he doesn't have an agent and his finance company doesn't have a copy (they should), then slandering the company on social media with negative assertions that can't be proven....you don't see a problem with that?

Originally Posted by kayess (Post 1311339)

I fully understand what your saying, but the fact that i received this confirmation page means i did setup for full coverage and was under the impression that's what i purchased. Progressive wouldn't send me this for no reason.

Now me not checking myself after i started paying is my fault, i agree. I don't have any intentions to slander them on social media but because i know what i initially bought and have some proof of it, i know there was an error on their end.

*Update, next Thursday one of their rep's is coming to meet me in person to discuss the claim and the information i received in May.*

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1311402)

...but as I mentioned, check with your finance company to find out if they have any info on your insurance status.

Originally Posted by Gauge (Post 1311870)

I agree, have a lawyer with you. You can translate "we will meet with you" to "we want to settle for way less than you're worth"

Originally Posted by Gauge (Post 1311870)

I agree, have a lawyer with you. You can translate "we will meet with you" to "we want to settle for way less than you're worth"

Originally Posted by semtex (Post 1311352)

Have a lawyer with you.

Originally Posted by MacCool (Post 1311305)

What if the insurance company is right, and the OP never did buy the comprehensive insurance that would cover him for flooding? I mean, they say he didn't (so far) and he can't prove otherwise. Presumption that he had comprehensive on the basis of his finance company requiring it isn't conclusive because they do make mistakes.

If he can't find his current declarations page, and he doesn't trust the insurance company's copy of the declarations page, and he doesn't have an agent and his finance company doesn't have a copy (they should), then slandering the company on social media with negative assertions that can't be proven....you don't see a problem with that?

Originally Posted by Pushing_Tin (Post 1312242)

First off it would be libel not slander. Second I don't know all of the details, but these companies are in the business of making money, not doing the right thing or helping the little guy out. Obviously this was a terrible situation and even if it was a simple paperwork "mistake" they could step up and earn a customer for life, or they could throw him under the bus and run the risk of a lot of negative publicity. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and that's the way business is done these days.