Got my new insurance policy yesterday. It's a tenant policy which covers our personal possessions since we rent. I read the whole thing from front to back (first time I ever did that! LOL) and didn't see a word about Y2k mentioned.

When I called to make a change in our address because they'd transposed a number, the woman I spoke with in "customer service" didn't have a clue when I asked her about why there was no mention of Y2k in my policy, as I knew several other people's new ones had.

She had no idea what I was talking about. She said, "well I know that to have your computers covered you need to have a special computer rider put into your policy". LOL. When I then started to explain a bit about Y2k and what I meant, she still didn't get it. I gave up.

Well....I guess that this company isn't "with it" yet. Or, if the company's "with it", this employee isn't . They are a division of Traveler's Group.

I suppose though that when my next year's policy comes (Nov. 99) it will no doubt have those nasty exclusions in it.

Just thought I would post this for general info.

-- Bobbi (volfnat@northweb.com), November 25, 1998

Answers

Ditto for me.

I stopped by a local insurance agency yesterday to enquire about a tenants package. After getting the basic rundown as to what was covered and what it would cost me, I asked the agent whether the company were planning on making any exclusions for Y2K mishaps. She didn't have a clue and had not heard anything about possible exclusions. She did promise to check into it for me and call me as soon as she has received any information.

This agent then went on to inform be that she was certain that Y2K would not cause any problems and that it was mainly all hype. I then asked her exactly how much research she had put into Y2K in order to come up with such an opinion. Rather embarrassed, she admitted that apart from a couple of articles and what friends had told her, she really knew very little about it. I then told her that having spent 500+ hours researching Y2K, I felt she was completely out to lunch and that she needs to wake up and smell the coffee. She was rather alarmed that she had been told the situation was very serious.

This type of conversation is becoming quite frequent with me. People with absolutely no knowledge or research into Y2K boldly proclaiming that they are sure there will be no major problems or muttering something about a silver bullet that will be discovered etc.

I am finding though, that having been quoted fairly extensively by the local newspaper, more and more people are starting to call and ask about how Y2K can affect them. However, even at this late date, the majority of people are still smugly holding onto their "it's no problem" attitude borne out of ignorance.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), November 25, 1998.

I'm sure they the y2k question under"acts of God". Or the war and insurrection clause.

nine

-- nine (nine_fingers@hotmail.com), November 25, 1998.

I am an ex-insurance broker and currently working in the software industry. Insurance journals are vague on this issue. While Y2K would be covered under most policies because it is not excluded, there is debate as to if Y2K is a "fortuitous" event- that is, unplanned and unable to prepare for. FORESEEN and PREVENTABLE events are EXCLUDED. (especially from a commercial standpoint) But what if the insured party took all proper precautions, but then his product interacted with a non- compliant system and caused injury? And what if the coverage is not excluded, but the company contests the claim under non- fortuitous event? But the agent stated in good faith that it was not excluded? Then the insurance broker's errors and omissions insurance coverage would be the next insuring party. But what if the insured is at fault because they were not thorough enough verifying compliance with a vendor? This is what the agents malpractice carrier would argue and the case could be in the courts for years. A recent agent's journal had 3 full pages devoted to transfer of liability between parties. They complexity of it bewildered me and there are no easy answers. From a tenant's standpoint, however, things like looting and theft should be covered. Look into adding a "special extention of coverage endorsement" or "deluxe renters" endorsement, that will increase peril coverage. $5-$25 extra for tenants and homeowners. Get compliance statements in writing from your agent and find out what kind of a system he has. Many (old) agents do not believe this is a problem and hang up on us when we talk about upgrading. A few large companies are also having compliance problems, it may be a better idea to go with very small mutual insurance carriers, sometimes who employ less than 100 people. They might actually be able to look up your policy be hand. I also have experience with a large direct writer. If they needed to get a paper copy of a policy they had to submit a request form. The request took 4 days to get back, and the microfiche copy had to be looked up on a computer to begin with! Frankly, I have doubts about the insurance industry being able to answer this crisis with timely claim service. The complex liability aspects alone could tie up settlement for years. Take precautions to keep your property safe and buy extra fire extinguishers.

-- P Kaminski (retro50@snet.net), November 25, 1998.

D**m. Another industry bites the dust, if many others are like this.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 25, 1998.

Dear Robert, Sweetie, they ARE., I know, I am an Insurance Agent have been for many years, the "industry of insurance" will be done for and BTW, every agency I've worked for so far are NOT compliant. I also used to do adjusting and our other insurance friend above is "right on" Even IF not excluded the big secret of the industry with respects to claims is How "not" to pay one. Although illegal, it is true.

-- Cant Say For Obvious Reasons (no@aol.com), November 26, 1998.

Since there a lot of one year policies out there, problems could start as soon as January 1999.

-- Kevin (mixesmusic@worldnet.att.net), November 26, 1998.