Home About Us Services Newsletter Quotes Business Automobile Home Owner's Links Claims Contact

The state’s new “Safe Driving Law” which signed by the Governor earlier this month will take effect on October 1, 2010.

Posted on July 23, 2010

The major provisions of the law provide that any driver caught composing or reading a text message can be cited and fined $100. Operators of public transportation vehicles who violate the ban will be subject to a $500 fine. Drivers under age 18 are prohibited from using any type of cell phone or mobile device with or without a hands-free feature while driving will be subject to a $100 fine, a 60 day license suspension and will be required to complete a driver attitudinal retraining course before the license is reinstated. Drivers 75 and older will have to undergo a vision test every five years in order to renew their licenses.

Law enforcement will have the authority to stop any driver suspected of texting; however, the offense will not be considered a moving violation and will not be subject to an insurance surcharge.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has recently changed regulations pertaining to the escape of liquid fuel.

Posted on June 28, 2010

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has recently changed regulations pertaining to the escape of liquid fuel.  We want to make sure you are aware of this new regulation, provide you with details on how this may affect your Homeowners Insurance with Hanover. 
 
Highlights:
•  Coverage for the escape of liquid fuel is not included in the base policy contract.  Optional coverage must be purchased in order to be protected from this type of a loss in the event of a claim.
•  Effective 7/1/2010, Hanover will begin offering optional coverage for the escape of liquid fuel at combined limits of $50,000 First Party and $200,000 Third Party.  New and renewal Connections® Home and Legacy customers are eligible according to the guidelines below.  The premium for this coverage will be $68.  

 Hanover has adopted ISO forms 231-5947 (homeowners), 231-5953 (condominiums), and 231-5959 (dwelling fire).
 
Guidelines:
•  In order to be eligible for coverage, oil tanks must be in compliance with Massachusetts Act 453.  All tanks installed prior to 1-1-90 must have a completed Certification Form 1A  (attached), which may require an inspection and additional costs paid by the insured to comply.  Tanks installed after 1-1-90 are likely in compliance with Act 453.  For these tanks, a copy of the oil burner permit obtained at installation is all that is needed.
•  Oil tanks buried under ground are ineligible.

The Hidden Tax in the Health Care Reconciliation Act

Posted on June 17, 2010

To help pay for the $940 billion health care reform measure, the administration and congressional Democrats included a 3.8% Medicare payroll tax on single people who earn more than $200,000 a year and couples earning over $250,000 a year. The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) along with the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (NAIFA) and the National Association for Fixed Annuities (NAFA) co-signed a March 24, 2010 letter that urged the Senate to leave the annuity provision out of the bill. Although the trade associations made a very strong argument, the bill did become law. Starting in 2013, the tax will be applied to annuity distributions, interest, dividends and capital gains. Although the estimates of how much the annuity portion of the tax may raise, all of the investment taxes are rumored to contribute $210 billion over the next 10 years. Complicating the tax is that while it’s fashioned as a tax primarily on annuity payouts from nonqualified plans, income from employer-sponsored plans such as 401(k)s will also be hit. While annuity income on qualified plans above the threshold amounts won’t be subject to the 3.8% tax, all annuity income, including income from qualified plans, is considered in calculating income to meet the tax threshold.

Progressive’s PIP Practices Come Under Fire

Posted on April 30, 2010

Since Progressive Insurance entered the private passenger auto insurance market two years ago, Massachusetts independent insurance agents have become well versed in examples of insureds who have “saved” money by purchasing auto insurance online from Progressive. The reality, in most cases, has been that the insured purchased less coverage, i.e. a six-month policy, a $500 glass deductible, $5,000 PD coverage, an $8,000 PIP deductible, among other shortchanged coverages.

MAIA recently came across a letter published in the April 19, 2010 issue of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, which addresses the $8,000 PIP deductible. We share that letter with you below.

To the editor:

I have been a Massachusetts attorney since 1988, devoting 100 percent of my practice to plaintiff personal injury. The majority of my cases are motor vehicle accidents.

Over the past 22 years, before Progressive Insurance Co. began issuing policies, I could count on one hand the number of people who elected a personal injury protection deductible. Now, almost every Progressive insured driver who has come to me has one.

One client, a very well-heeled individual, has $250,0.00/$500,000 across the board (optional bodily injury to others, underinsured motorist coverage and uninsured motorist coverage) but no PIP coverage. She bought her policy online and paid a hefty premium to Progressive — and was shocked when I explained there was no first-party coverage to pay lost wages and medical expenses. She felt completely duped.

In reviewing her past policies, it became clear that, in more than 20 years of purchasing insurance, this was the first time she ever had a PIP deductible. Not coincidentally, it was the first time she ever purchased a policy from Progressive.

Progressive has an aggressive marketing campaign to convince Massachusetts residents to purchase insurance online, alleging big savings in premiums. All my clients with PIP deductibles purchased their policies via the Internet.

When I went to the Progressive website to investigate why there were so many PIP deductibles, I was appalled to discover that the software utilized by Progressive automatically creates a policy with the PIP deductible in place. Progressive requires the applicant to catch the automatic application of the deductible and change the policy to provide for PIP coverage. There is no explanation of the implications to the insured in waiving PIP coverage for himself and household members, the cost of having PIP being relatively de minimus.

Any attorney who handles auto accident cases knows the serious implications PIP deductibles have in presenting third-party injury claims to the insurers of the at-fault vehicles. Additionally, seriously injured people who are unable to work and have no income unknowingly waive $8,000 that would have been available to pay lost wages. That can have a devastating impact on a person’s ability to keep up with daily living expenses as many people in the current economy are living paycheck to paycheck.

Most people have little understanding of the intricacies of auto insurance policies, and Progressive is taking advantage of that lack of knowledge. Creating the website to automatically apply a PIP deductible seems inherently unfair to the consumer and takes advantage of Massachusetts residents.

I implore Progressive to change its mode of operation and to automatically provide PIP coverage, requiring an applicant to waive it if he so desires. If Progressive declines to do so, I respectfully request that the Attorney General’s Office step in and protect our residents from this unfair business practice.

The only thing “progressive” about the way this particular insurer is doing business is its calculated decision to  take advantage of Massachusetts residents who purchase policies online.

Attorney General Issues Report on Managed Competition

Posted on December 30, 2009

On December 23, 2009, Attorney General Martha Coakley issued a report on the status of insurance deregulation.

According to the report, “the results over the first year have been, at best, mixed. While prices have dropped overall, consumers are currently paying more than they would have had the market not been deregulated. A variety of new insurance companies have entered the market, but most of the new entrants have not offered lower rates overall. Moreover, the new insurers have not caused incumbent carriers to lower statewide prices (indeed, in 2009, many insurers began increasing statewide prices).”

The AG’s report was critical of managed competition, citing several troubling developments during the first year of deregulation including the following excerpts from the report’s Executive Summary:

• Many consumers paid higher prices while companies increased profit targets in the rates.
  • Insurance companies began managed competition by raising their base rates by up to 10%, resulting in excessive rates in an environment where insurer losses have, on average, decreased over the past several years. If drivers are not chosen by insurers for preferential discounts, they will pay these increased rates.
  • The number of rating factors that rely on characteristics other than driving has increased; insurers now charge consumers based on factors such as prior limits of coverage, payment history, and the purchase of homeowners insurance. Many such discounts or rating factors may be proxies for banned factors, such as income and homeownership.
  • Insurance companies have significantly increased their underwriting profit adjustment provisions and shareholder returns loaded in their rates. In 2008, the Commissioner accepted target returns in the insurer rate filings that were over 150% of the 2007 regulated value for some
    insurers.
  • It appears that Hispanics and low income consumers (those earning under $25,000) have been especially disadvantaged by deregulation; a larger proportion of these groups have received rate increases, and fewer have received decreases. Elderly consumers and urban drivers may also ultimately pay increased prices, regardless of driving record.

• Company prices and rating behavior have become less transparent.
  • Deregulation has produced more secrecy and less transparency. Insurers have omitted data and information from their public filings; as a result, the filed rates are unsupported, and it is impossible to adequately assess their accuracy.
  • Many companies have refused to make public key rating information; it is impossible to determine how an individual consumer’s rate is calculated or whether individuals? rates are accurate or fair.
  • The insurers and their rating organization, the Automobile Insurers Bureau, have refused to make public data on claims, premiums, and expenses necessary to determine whether statewide rates are fair and not excessive.
• Consumers do not have easy access to accurate price information.
  • There is currently no easy way for consumers to determine what the market prices for insurance are, what each company will charge a particular individual, and what discounts and special coverages are available.
  • Some consumers have not been offered all discounts to which they are entitled, have had difficulty obtaining quotes from agents, and have received different quotes from different agents for the same insurers.
  • It appears that only a small percentage of consumers switched carriers to take advantage of lower prices (or for any other reason) in 2008.
  • The Division of Insurance’s website, ostensibly designed to help consumers to “shop around,” gives unhelpful and misleading insurance information and steers consumers in many instances to more expensive insurance companies.
    
    
• Consumer protections have weakened.
  • The Commissioner adopted an order to eliminate the Board of Appeal, which provides an impartial forum for consumers to appeal insurers’ fault determinations; the Legislature subsequently passed a law keeping the Board permanently in place.
  • Because insurers are no longer required to offer insurance to consumers they consider undesirable, many good drivers, particularly in urban areas, may be nonrenewed or denied coverage.
  • Consumers refused coverage are randomly assigned to an insurer in the residual market; agents report that many such consumers fail to receive appropriate discounts.
  • Insurers have created new policy provisions and rules that eliminate consumer protections. Some insurers increase prices for not-at-fault accidents, charge for excluded drivers or drivers who already have their own insurance policies, and have adopted problematic provisions related to cancellation, down payment, deductibles, installments, and rating factors. Many consumers are unaware of these changes.
• Significant barriers to competition still exist.
  • Many companies charge “short rate” penalties when consumers switch companies during the policy year, limiting customers’ ability to switch carriers except around the renewal date. Moreover, loyalty discounts may also deter consumers from switching to a better priced carrier
    every year.
  • Many companies offer insurance agents significant bonuses for bringing in specific kinds of customers. Certain agents, as a result, may have an incentive to recommend the policy that offers the most lucrative commissions.
  • Most Massachusetts consumers purchase insurance through an independent agent, yet most agents typically cannot or do not provide price quotes for more than a couple of carriers.
  • Some insurers have been allowed special deals from Commissioner Burnes, creating an uneven playing field in the marketplace. These special arrangements, such as permitting new entrants to avoid residual market costs for two years, harm other insurers, and harm competition.

The AG’s Executive Summary concluded with a discussion of the road ahead for managed competition including the following recommendations:

The Road Ahead
Implementation of a truly competitive system has the potential to lower prices for all consumers. Unfortunately, the current experiment in deregulation has thus far not achieved this goal. Instead, managed competition has caused many drivers to be overcharged, and has led to fewer consumer protections. For reform to work, true consumer protections need to be developed, and regulators must ensure that rates are transparent and not excessive.

It is possible to design an effective managed competitive system that meets these goals. Such a system would:

• Provide consumers with the necessary tools to “shop around.” To benefit from a competitive market, consumers must obtain price quotations from a wide range of companies in order to find the best price for their needs. A central web portal would allow consumers to input their information once and obtain comparative quotes from any or all insurers.
• Ensure that underwriting and rating are not unfairly discriminatory. Insurers should not use proxies for prohibited rating factors or refuse to offer insurance to good drivers.
• Strengthen consumer protections. While Commissioner Burnes promulgated regulations and bulletins dealing with managed competition, none of these provisions deal with consumer protection issues such as marketing and unfair practices. Advertising, pricing, and claim practices should be fair and
  consistent.
• Remove impediments to competition. Currently, numerous barriers to competition exist, including inadequate information, non-standardization of policies, and short rate penalties. These barriers should be removed.
• Provide for rigorous review of proposed rates. Insurers now file rates with little or no supporting information or documentation for important rating elements. Rate support should be carefully scrutinized, and inappropriate costs should not be passed on to consumers. Insurance premiums should not be based on inflated projections that overcharge Massachusetts drivers.

To protect consumers, it is important to address the issues outlined above and discussed in this report. While deregulation may ultimately offer advantages to consumers, reforms are needed to increase price transparency, create easy access to accurate and complete information, ensure fair prices, and provide adequate consumer protections. Without these features, insurers and not consumers will benefit from deregulation, and many Massachusetts drivers will continue to overpay for their automobile insurance.

The Attorney General’s Office represents consumers in matters related to insurance. Under managed competition, the Attorney General has reviewed filed rates and called for rate hearings before the Division of Insurance, demanding the rejection of discriminatory and excessive rates; urged the Commissioner to require full and complete filings; provided testimony before the Legislature and Division of Insurance recommending stronger consumer protections; and brought cases against insurance companies that sought to take advantage of Massachusetts consumers. However, while advocacy and enforcement proceedings do help, the market also needs fair and firm rules that create bright-line boundaries for insurer behavior, a level playing field, and strong consumer protections.

Therefore, the Attorney General’s Office intends to promulgate consumer protection regulations under her G.L. Chapter 93A Consumer Protection regulatory authority. In addition, for issues that are not best suited for regulation, the Attorney General’s Office plans to work with the Legislature to explore potential solutions to these problems.

We have posted the AG’s 55 page report and 5 page executive summary on our website. Click here (massagent.com/info/AGReport.pdf) to read and/or download the entire report.

When my client moves, what coverage does his ISO HO policy provide him? If there is a loss during the moving process, will the ISO HO policy respond?

Posted on September 18, 2009

The answer depends on the type/range of perils applicable to Coverage C. Personal Property and the particular loss. The unendorsed ISO (HO-91 or HO-2000) HO-3 Special Form policy provides “named peril” coverage to contents. These 16 named perils are essentially the same as found in the HO-4 Tenants Policy, HO-2 Broad Form Policy or HO-6 Unit-owners Policy.

One of the named perils is “vehicles”. If the moving van is involved in an accident there could be resulting damage to the contents inside. The vehicle peril in the ISO HO policy should respond to this situation. Certainly, if the moving van overturns, the “vehicle” peril would respond to the resulting damage to the contents inside the moving van. If items fell off the vehicle used to transport the items to the new location, again, the “vehicles” peril should respond. If the moving van hit the curbing, sideswiped another object or the top of the van struck an overhang any resulting damage to the contents in the interior of the moving van would be covered under the “vehicles” peril.

The ISO HO policy does not require that there be physical contact by the vehicle, it merely requires that direct physical loss to covered property be caused by a listed peril.

B.	Coverage C – Personal Property We insure for direct physical loss to the property described in Coverage C caused by any of the following perils unless the loss is excluded in Section I – Exclusions.6. Vehicles

Just what is “caused”?
A listed peril must be the “cause” of direct physical loss to covered property. Dictionary definitions of “cause” include:

a.	The producer of an effect, result, or consequence.
b.	The one, such as a person, event, or condition, that is responsible for an action or result.
or
	to be the cause of; bring about.

You know … that whole “proximate cause/efficient proximate cause” or “chain of events” theory. If not for being in a vehicle … if not for the vehicle hitting something … would your property have suffered DIRECT PHYSICAL loss?

The Massachusetts Supreme Court discussed causation in the Jussim v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co ., 415 Mass 24, 610 NE2d 954 (1993):

The principle quoted above is based on a test which has long been used by this court to resolve coverage controversies in chain causation cases. That test seeks to determine the efficient proximate cause of the loss. If that cause is an insured risk, there will be coverage even though the final form of the property damage, produced by a series of related events, appears to take the loss outside of the terms of the policy…

The active efficient cause that sets in motion a train of events which brings about a result without the intervention of any force started and working actively from a new and independent source is the direct and proximate cause referred to in the cases …57

Citing Jussim, a U.S. District Court acknowledged that Massachusetts generally recognizes a “chain of events” rule that permits plaintiffs to recover for an excluded loss if the efficient proximate cause of that loss was covered but nonetheless denied coverage where the policy unambiguously excluded damage caused by a fire that occurs at the same time as, or ensues from, a boiler or machinery breakdown.59

It’s interesting …
How we like to add WORDS to the policy. Some think there is only coverage when the vehicle HITS the covered property … WHERE oh WHERE does it say THAT??? Please there are WAY too many words in the policy already … let’s not add anymore!

How much coverage do I have in the moving van?
The ISO HO policy allows the client complete Coverage C limit to apply while temporarily off the residence premises. Of course, all “special limits” or exclusions as to particular types of property apply.

What happens if the new $2,500 HD Plasma TV is dropped while moving into or out of the moving van?
Dropping is NOT a named peril. The unendorsed HO-3, the HO-4, HO-6 and HO-2 would not cover this scenario. However, if the ISO HO-91 HO-3 were endorsed with the HO-15 Special Personal Property Coverage endorsement, then this claim could be covered. This endorsement can only be added to the HO-3 Special Form policy. It provides “open peril” coverage to the property covered under Coverage C. Or, if your company uses the HO-2000 version then sell the HO-5 Comprehensive form.

If your insured has an HO-6 under either the HO-91 or HO-2000 program then the HO 17 31 Special Form Coverage C endorsement should be added. Under the HO-2000 program there is even an “open perils” endorsement for the Tenant HO-4 form. This endorsement number is HO 05 24

I thought there was “breakage” exclusion under the all risk policies or
endorsements …
Open perils contents DOES have a restriction for breakage of certain articles such as eyeglasses, glassware, statuary, marble, porcelains, bric-a-brac and similar fragile articles other than jewelry, watches, bronzes, cameras and photographic lenses. This “short list” of articles is covered for breakage ONLY if caused by certain named situations and “dropping” is NOT one of them!!!

Remember … HO loses are paid on an ACV basis …
Whether your client has “named peril” contents coverage or “open peril” contents coverage, losses are paid on an ACV (depreciated) basis. In order to remove this “depreciation” penalty, the Replacement Cost Endorsement HO 04 90 is necessary.

Wouldn’t the moving van business be responsible for the loss, anyway??
Well, yes… maybe. If the client signed any paper work they might have “waived” or “reduced” their rights of action against the moving business in order to get a cheaper rate.

The moving van company might be responsible, but do they have insurance??? The BAP policy
that covers their moving van has an exclusion entitled “Care, Custody or Control”.

The BAP liability portion will NOT cover “Property damage” to or “covered pollution cost or expense” involving property owned or transported by the “insured” or in the “insured’s care, custody or control.”

The CGL policy that the moving van business purchases to cover their “other than auto operations” also has a care, custody and control exclusion.

The CGL property damage liability coverage does NOT apply to “property damage” to personal property in the care, custody or control of the insured.

If the customer makes a claim, it will be directly against the moving business, not against the
BAP or CGL insurance of the moving business.

Could the moving company purchase coverage for this exposure?
Yes, there is inland marine coverage that the business can purchase. But, do they? Or, do they “pass the cost along” to the customer? Does the customer sign away their rights in order to get a cheaper price? Does the customer reduce their actual values received if there is a loss to a lower valuation in order to get a cheaper price?

If the client has the homeowners coverage for the loss caused by the moving company …
By purchasing “open peril” coverage on their contents, most items will be covered for breakage. The HO insurance carrier will make the decision as to whether they will subrogate or not. Also, the insured has the open peril coverage “all year round” now which can be a good thing for losses such as power surge to electronic equipment!

What if the insured moves their OWN property …
The HO policy still applies ….as long as the insured did not INTENTIONALLY damage his/her stuff!

Will the MAP apply to a loss if stuff falls out of the vehicle or gets damaged in the vehicle?
No … Part 4 under the MAP excludes:

6.	To an auto or other property owned by you or the legally responsible person. Similarly, we will not pay for damage to an auto or other property, except for a private residence or garage, which you or the legally responsible person rents or has in his or her care.

The infamous “care, custody, and control” exclusion sends the claim back to a property policy … the homeowners policy.

Yes, the HO deductible STILL applies … so … is the loss worth submitting to the company … if one might lose their loss free credit … or worse yet … the policy renewal!

PS … the AAIS forms … are very similar …
From a “named peril” standpoint Contents starts out with:

“We” insure against direct physical loss to property covered under Coverage C caused by the following perils, unless the loss is excluded under the Exclusions That Apply To Property Coverages:

f. Vehicles

Direct Physical loss merely needs to be “caused by” a listed peril. And … the vehicle peril … also is only ONE word … don’t add any more! The “all risk” coverage is similar in the breakage language to the ISO policy … so moving is covered under the AAIS form … and dropping and breaking can be covered under the “all risk” forms but NOT for eyeglasses, glassware, statuary, marble, porcelains, bric-a-brac and similar fragile articles!

MySpace, Facebook, Blogging, Emails, Texting … The Internet Exposure

Posted on July 22, 2009

What you “say” on the internet…

Some people put some awful stupid statements in writing. YES … All of that IS in “writing”. Libel … the things you write … are easier to prove against you than the foolish things that you say (slander).

People are suing …
People don’t think about these things … until they get sued … and even then … I bet they think that they are covered under their HO policy. Whoops … guess again!

Did you know …
In Hermitage Pennsylvania a high school co-principal is suing four former students for creating a “parody profile” on MySpace.com where this principal “admitted to” smoking pot, having sex with students and keeping a keg of beer behind his desk.

Oh, by the way … this is a FEDERAL lawsuit …
Could this happen to some of YOUR insured’s kids … to the parents of these kids for “negligent supervision????” And … if it does … and your insureds are sued … will their HO policy respond with defense and coverage?

And … in another part of the country … San Antonio, Texas …
An assistant high school principal filed suit against two former students AND their parents for alleged defamatory statements made on their MySpace.com web page. She is suing for “defamation, negligence and gross negligence” for the “lewd, defamatory and obscene comments, pictures and graphics.” She is also suffering because a multitude of miscreants who have viewed“her” page … and contacted her.

The allegation against the parents contains the following language as “allowing access to the Internet, unsupervised and without restraint poses an obvious risk and unreasonable danger that such children would utilize the Internet for illicit purposes.”

For those of you who think … “kids will be kids” … this is a tad different than writing nasty things on the bathroom stall doors.

Internet-related Defamation lawsuits increasing …
106 civil lawsuits against bloggers and others in social networks and online forums were reported in statistics by Citizen Media Law Project at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. This is up from just 12 in 2003.

What will the unendorsed Homeowners policy do?
The ISO unendorsed homeowners policy covers Bodily Injury and Property Damage liability.

“Bodily injury” means bodily harm, sickness or disease, including required care, loss of services and death that results.

“Property damage” means physical injury to, destruction of, or loss of use of tangible property.

One’s reputation is not “tangible property.” One who suffers mental anguish and emotional trauma over items “written” on the Internet about them does not suffer “bodily injury” … at least not in Massachusetts.

So … if either the named insured or other resident relative writes a defamatory remark about someone else or deliberately writes incorrect information about someone else resulting in a lawsuit … what will the HO policy do?

NOT MUCH …

SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGES

A. Coverage E – Personal Liability
If a claim is made or a suit is brought against an “insured” for damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” to which this coverage applies, we will:

1. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which an “insured” is legally liable. Damages include prejudgment interest awarded against an “insured”; and
2. Provide a defense at our expense by counsel of our choice, even if the suit is groundless, false or fraudulent. We may investigate and settle any claim or suit that we decide is appropriate. Our duty to settle or defend ends when our limit of liability for the”occurrence” has been exhausted by payment of a judgment or settlement.

If the suit or claim is not BI or PD … then the Section II coverage will NOT apply … and therefore there will be no payment of damages or defense coverage.

What if the insured is NOT “guilty”?
Well … I guess that’s great … but how does that get proven? If your insured is sued then there will be a court case. Who will pay for the lawyer? If they have a normal unendorsed HO policy … not the HO carrier!

In today’s world of suit-happy individuals the Internet just provides one more mechanism from which potential problems and lawsuits can arise. And now … so many people have Internet capabilities on their cell phones.

 

1. HO 24 82 (04 02 edition) Personal Injury endorsement

   SECTION II – LIABILITY COVERAGES

    

   A. Coverage E – Personal Liability
   The following is added to Coverage E – Personal Liability:

   Personal Injury Coverage
   If a claim is made or suit is brought against an “insured” for damages resulting from an
   offense, defined under “personal injury”, to which this coverage applies, we will:
   
   

    

   1. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which an “insured” is legally liable. Damages include prejudgment interest awarded against an “insured”; and  

   2. Pay up to our limit of liability for the damages for which an “insured” is legally liable. Damages include prejudgment interest awarded against an “insured”; and

   DEFINITIONS

   The following definitions are added:

   “Personal injury” means injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses, but only if the offense was committed during the policy period:

   1. False arrest, detention or imprisonment;
   2. Malicious prosecution;
   3. The wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor;
   4. Oral or written publication of material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services; or
   5. Oral or written publication of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.
2. Personal Umbrella policy … might provide such coverage as a broadening applicable over the “deductible”/Self insured retention

In today’s world this is a very REAL exposure, and you SHOULD have this endorsement on your homeowners’ policy. It is inexpensive and one that I certainly want … and have … on MY policy.

New RMV Policy on Non-Payment of State Taxes

Posted on December 16, 2008

Legislation Requires the RMV to suspend the driver’s license and vehicle registrations of drivers who have outstanding tax obligations owed to the Department of Revenue.  Suspension notices will be issued once the action is entered in to ALARS.  Customers with suspensions due to non-payment of state tax will:

1. Receive a letter stating their licenses/registration(s) will be suspended 10 days from the date of letter.

2. Have a suspension pending on his/her license and /or registration record during the 10-day grace period  or be suspended after the 10 days if he/she fails to clear the obligation.

3. Receive a letter each time the DOR notifies the RMV of any new tax non-payment issues.

4. Pay a $100.00 license reinstatement and/or $50.00 Registration reinstatement fee if they fail to clear the obligation and their license and/or registration is suspended.  Payment of the reinstatement fee is in addition to any costs associated with clearing the issue with DOR.

Customers with suspensions or pending suspensions due to non-payment of state tax must contact the Collections Bureau at the  Department of Revenue to resolve the issue at 617-887-6400

Merchants Insurance Group Lowers Commercial Rates

Posted on August 13, 2008

They are being very aggressive with their rate reductions. The average rates are going down between 11 and 20% depending on types of business and multi policy credits.

COMM’L AUTO – FLEET = 3 VEHICLES!  COMPANION CREDITS, EXPERIENCE RATING & IRPM  WITH UNDERWRITING PERMISSION!  WE WILL NOT BE BEAT & WILL PENETRATE MA & RI AS PROMISED!

Progressive Acknowledges Error in Rate Comparisons …

Posted on August 13, 2008

<In an email letter sent on August 1 to all Massachusetts residents who visited Progressive Insurance’s website, the company acknowledges that the comparison rate quotes it displayed for Arbella Insurance were incorrect and “may have been higher than [they] should have been.”

MAIA applauds Arbella for being aggressive in confronting Progressive for its inaccurate quoting. MAIA has brought to the attention of the Insurance Commissioner and the Office of the Attorney General a number of practices by Progressive which are not in compliance with regulations issued by the Division of Insurance and even Progressive’s own rate filing. We will continue to raise these issues as they come
to our attention.

Next Page »

Copyright © 2008 Marc Alkes Insurance. All Rights Reserved. Worcester, MA Web development by DLG Results

Log in