State Farm Homeowners Policy has Exclusion

State Farm Homeowners policy

[manumission]

I just recieved an update for my State Farm Insurance homeowners policy. I was shocked to find this statement listed under Reductions in Coverage, Paragraph D, Section I, Exclusions, Titled Governmental Action.

" We now exclude the destruction, confiscation, or seizure of covered property by order of any governmental or public authority. However, this exclusion does not apply to action taken by the authority at the time of a fire to prevent its spread"

Notice it says "by order" not lawful order, and "public authority" could be the dog catcher.

Oops sorry wrong drug house - Not Covered Command center set up on my lawn on a rainy day and trashes it - Not Covered

Or worse scenarios

You get the Idea

[trebb]

In a way, I can see their point - if a government agency/authority trashes your stuff, they should compensate you for it.

[sonofagun]

We now exclude the destruction, confiscation, or seizure of covered property by order of any governmental or public authority.

Wow!

I guess this means that this event is so likely to happen and the destruction is so great that State Farm knows they'll lose money be covering those losses.

Scary!

[Mamzelle]

A tangental issue, but concerns State Farm. I heard on O'Reilly a few nights back about an ACLU/NAMBLA defense to an "intentional tort" (MURDER) lawsuit also being defended by State Farm Insurance. I've been doing lots of searching, but cannot figure out why State Farm would defend either NAMBLA (because of its involvement with the pedophile murderer)...

Anyone who knows, I'd really like to hear from...

Intentional torts are not covered by any insurance that I know about. Surely NAMBLA does not have insurance through State Farm to cover such things....?!

[JohnnyZ]

I wonder what claim inspired this exclusion?

[LibWhacker]

Command center set up on my lawn on a rainy day and trashes it - Not Covered

Just guessing, but don't the city, county, state and feds reimburse people for this kind of thing? In other words, why should insurance companies pay when homeowners can easily, and almost always successfully, appeal directly to the parties responsible for reimbursment? Again, just asking. I don't know it's true. I just get that distinct impression watching Dirty Harry. :-)

[LibWhacker]

Stated much better and more succinctly than my version!

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

I wonder if the State Farm has the right to modify/change the contract while it is in force. If a contract is agreed to in the beginning, neither side can not change it until the termination date or cancellation.

[Xenalyte]

Yo insurance man, what's your take on this?

[Who dat?]

I've been doing lots of searching, but cannot figure out why State Farm would defend either NAMBLA (because of its involvement with the pedophile murderer)...

There was an article about it posted here earlier today. The reason was (IIRC) that they weren’t going to cover one guy because he had been charged(?). Two other guys were going to be covered because some state laws required it, plus it sounded like the kid’s family was suing the guys and the insurer would have to pay out through the liability coverage. So they’re trying to avoid or minimize a claim.

That’s how I remember it.

[Who dat?]

http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=80809

There it is.

[GOP_1900AD]

The want you to sue the idiots that done it, as opposed to paying you for it.

[Sloth]

Asset forfeiture: we love it!

[GOP_1900AD]

The > they ...

[dawn53]

A few years ago, after 9/11, I was suprised to read the fine print on my homeowners, health and life insurance policies to find that they all excluded coverage if a claim was made because of "an act of war, declared or undeclared."

I called the insurance companies and found that the "undeclared war" translated into a terrorist act.

So if my home, or myself were injured during a terrorist act, my insurance would not cover the damages or claims. Or if I died during a terrorist act, my life insurance would not pay.

I called the Commissioner of Insurance for our state and found that after 9/11 this pretty much became standard policy with insurance companies.

[TheForceOfOne]

Seems as though they're not such good neighbors after all. :P

[struwwelpeter]

Remember how the insurance people put lots of target ranges out of business with their liability rates? Now some states (California comes to mind) are requiring or will require liability insurance for Federal Firearms License holders (including the mini-FFL 'Curios and Relics'). I also read that some are considering requiring insurance for instructors as well.

Another back-door way of putting non-PC entities out of business?

[sportutegrl]

In a way, I can see their point - if a government agency/authority trashes your stuff, they should compensate you for it. Yes, but the reason you have insurance is so you don't have to deal with this stuff. If you are hit by a drunk driver and you have car insurance, you file a claim with your insurer and let them fight with the alcoholic. It is almost impossible to get any money at all out of the government. They have lawyers whose have nothing else to do but make sure you get little or nothing. You should get paid from your insurance company and let them deal with the government.

[Richard Kimball]

The function of an insurance company is to compensate you for your losses. Frequently these losses are caused by third parties who are liable. The insurance company compensates the insured, then seeks compensation from the party who caused the loss.

I have used State Farm for years, but I'm going to check on this exclusion.

[Honor above all]

The changes to the contract are made at renewal, typically annually on Homes and semiannually on autos. At that time the previous contract is complete and the new contract, and terms, are in effect as long as you pay the premium. Your paying of the renewal premium is your acceptance of the new contract. Done deal.