Our local FOX News station here in Tampa ran this story last night about Tough Mudder. I had to share! It features my daughter April. Yeah, I’m there somewhere if I look close enough. But I don’t care to see that old man! But I’m proud to see my daughter on the local news!
FOX News Tampa: These Ladies Have No Problem Getting Dirty
A friend called me the other day, asking for some help in determining if he had insurance coverage for the following situation:
He has a personal auto policy and his 20 year old son (Ryan) is listed as an insured driver. His son goes to college and lives off campus in a rental house that he shares with four other roommates. One of the roommates (Paul) has a scooter/moped that he uses to travel back and forth to campus.
One day after getting permission from Paul to use his moped, Ryan lost control and crashed it into one of his other roommate’s (Kyle) pickup truck, which was parked in the driveway. The impact caused significant damage to Kyle’s rear passenger door.
After determining that the scooter/moped had no liability insurance available to cover the damage to the pickup truck, Kyle filed an uninsured motorist property damage claim with his insurance company. (Yes, UM/PD coverage was included in Kyle’s auto policy.)
Here’s the question: Considering the facts of this case, and disregarding any UM/PD issues, would Ryan have any insurance coverage under his father’s Personal Auto Policy (PAP) should Kyle’s insurance company pursue subrogation?
It’s simply amazing to see the impact that state-mandated continuing education (“CE”) has had on the claims industry over the last few decades. One would think (and that regulators thought) such requirements would enhance the quality and professionalism of insurance claims practice. Unfortunately, my perception is that the effect has been somewhat less than successful, and that the intent of CE has certainly not been appreciated.
These days it seems that all I hear are adjusters complaining about their CE requirements. Initially I am inclined to be unsympathetic; yet, to be honest, when I think about today’s typical CE course, I believe there may be a certain amount of logic to their dissatisfaction. In fact, it actually may not be the “requirement” of CE that is the source of their frustration, nor, perhaps, the “cost”. But if either of these issues aren’t the cause, then what is?
A number of questions come to mind:
- Is it, in fact, the quality and/or relevance of the CE? My observation is that, in today’s “frugal” and busy claims environment, a large part of the industry depends on CE requirements to provide much of today’s claims training. Is it working?
- Is it the cost? I would find that hard to believe; yet I am often asked, “Where can I get some free CE?” Given the time and expense of developing quality claims training and education, I am amazed at just how “cheaply” one can secure CE (e.g. “24 CE for $39.95!” or “Unlimited CE for $99!”). Given the fact that most of this product is rarely even relevant to the job of an adjuster, or helpful in the least, is it even worth it? The saying, “You get what you pay for” comes to mind…
- Could it be that adjusters are just too busy and don’t want to be bothered? For some adjusters, this is something with which I can sympathize. Today’s claims operations ARE very busy. But that’s the job, isn’t it?
Actually, to this last question is there not a greater point to be raised? Continue Reading