i agree it makes sense that only the current value is insured, but this is an ambiguous aspect of auto insurance that can lead one to make incorrect assumptions. i suspect that this is not a clear point for a lot of people, even if they also guess that it is the current value that is insured. perhaps i could have been a little more diligent in asking the broker to confirm that it is indeed the current value that is insured. but show me a clause in a policy that unequivocally explains that it is the current value that is insured.
in the absence of such a clause, is it not logical to think that the declared value is what is insured, considering the premiums do not change over time (even though the actual value of the vehicle depreciates)? thanks RBull for suggesting that the premiums do not change because the cost to repair the vehicle remains relatively constant whether it is new or old. that makes logical sense, and that is an easy explanation to accept.
you don't know what you don't know, even if appears to be basic to an onlooker. i don't descend from generations of kids who mowed their grandparents' lawns, for instance, so i don't know jack about lawn mowers while some guys i know could take a motor apart and put it back together again, blindfolded. but i know a lot about other things that they don't. so you don't know what you don't know, but i thought the point of peer-moderated message forums was to share knowledge.
i appreciate you holding my knowledge in such high esteem, mike, that you would think the 'basics' to be beneath me. modestly, i must decline your generous accolade, but it would have been more helpful were you to provide some official reference or other resource to actually address the issue i had raised.
all of us here are DIYers to some extent; i think that is one of the key defining characteristics that gives us a collective identity on this forum. but i would suggest that without limiting the importance of personal diligence on the part of the consumer, the onus of educating people on insurance matters should fall on the insurance companies. they should be accountable, just as you might hold the manufacturer of any product to account for educating you on the use of that product. to not hold the supplier of a product/service to account, is to perpetuate the kind of consumer complacency (of which i'm also guilty) that causes people to be disadvantaged against these companies......wait a minute, isn't that a major purpose of this forum? to help one another learn ways to defend against these faceless companies??? the answer is yes.
the insurance company not educating you is part of the problem, and we should all boycott these companies for doing crappy business. a good business tries to add value and provide good service to its clients. it doesn't shirk the responsibility of educating its clients; rather, it should educate its clients and thereby demonstrate its superior value compared to its competitors. mike, i appreciate your kind responses in some other threads i've posted in, but the other part of the problem is being condescending and unhelpful to your peers.
