Don't do business with camping world

[lenjen]

In most businesses today the employees are instructed not admit any blame or responsibility for anything. We live in a sue happy country and any indication of wrong doing adds to the case of the injured party. Recently I witnessed someone fall in a water spill at a fast food restaurant. Customers rushed to the aid of the person. Not one employee offered help or assistance but mopped up the liquid immediately.

[CCFROMFL]

DogPatch is correct, I handled property and casualty insurance claims for 40 years. It all depends on what actual coverage CW has, is their coverage primary ?


Usually, your personal insurance will not "charge" points against you as you were not negligent. A claim like this is a property claim and not a liability claim. Your insurance premium might go up because a claim was "paid". But if they are successful in recovery then there should be no increase.


You should contact your insurance carrier and claims representative and request that they keep you informed as to repairs, investigation, subrogation recover, etc.

[cb1000rider]

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

I am very puzzled by this attitude of, "Oh, don't contact your insurance company, they'll raise your rates." In this case the OP did nothing that he could be held responsible for, he should suffer no loss or have his rates raised as a result of getting is insurance company involved. If his rates are affected, he shouldn't be doing business with that insurance company.

I'm glad you asked. Here's my reasoning:
1) The OP isn't responsible. His property was in the hands of a company that is responsible for it while it's in their possession. They're a big company, they're insured, and they should do the RIGHT THING by taking that responsibility seriously.

2) By going through his insurance company, he's subject to the comprehensive deductible. That's hundreds or even thousands of dollars that he's out of pocket that he shouldn't be out of pocket on. Yes, they *may* subrogate the issue and he might get his deductable back, but why should he be out that amount of money?

3) A comprehensive claim may or may not raise rates, but it WILL be incurred on his CLUE report and can have bearing on future insurability. It'll go in as comprehensive and likely not-at-fault, but these still have bearing on rates and future insurability. CLUE is like your credit report but for insurance claims and it's very important to keep it as clean as possible. You indicate that he can't be held responsible. I assure you, that too many comprehensive claims (not at fault) are not a good thing and CAN impact your rates. The simple fact of having fewer insurance companies to chose from is likely to be a financial impact.

I've explained myself. Can you tell me why you feel the other way? IE, if I damaged your property, should I just tell you to take it up with your insurance company and you'd be fine with that?

[cb1000rider]

Originally Posted by abarkl

A fair warning to the OP, companies are "getting tough" regarding negative reviews on the Internet, and this post could cost you much more than a $200 deductible.

I would think CW has the money and lawyers to; Sue for an "illegal campaign to damage, discredit, defame, and libel."

One defense to this sort of thing is speaking the factual truth.
Personally, I'm very thankful for those people that let me know what businesses I should and shouldn't do business with in a truthful and factual manner.

[bamaboy473]

Originally Posted by cb1000rider

I've explained myself. Can you tell me why you feel the other way? IE, if I damaged your property, should I just tell you to take it up with your insurance company and you'd be fine with that?

Look at the situation from a different perspective; that of the CFO and General Counsel of every service company in America.

If a company allows customer property onto their property, and in so doing provides blanket coverage for that property, what kind of insurance premiums would they pay..100X higher? Would you want to pay ten times the rate of repair in order to cover their higher costs?

Secondly, take a small repair shop that suffers a few losses and gets cancelled. Bam! there goes the shop; out of business.

Balance that against an insurance system that (seems to) work for everybody; both companies and consumers.

All of these pages over $200? Crazy.

[BFlinn181]

Originally Posted by cb1000rider

I'm glad you asked. Here's my reasoning:
1) The OP isn't responsible. His property was in the hands of a company that is responsible for it while it's in their possession. They're a big company, they're insured, and they should do the RIGHT THING by taking that responsibility seriously.

2) By going through his insurance company, he's subject to the comprehensive deductible. That's hundreds or even thousands of dollars that he's out of pocket that he shouldn't be out of pocket on. Yes, they *may* subrogate the issue and he might get his deductable back, but why should he be out that amount of money?

3) A comprehensive claim may or may not raise rates, but it WILL be incurred on his CLUE report and can have bearing on future insurability. It'll go in as comprehensive and likely not-at-fault, but these still have bearing on rates and future insurability. CLUE is like your credit report but for insurance claims and it's very important to keep it as clean as possible. You indicate that he can't be held responsible. I assure you, that too many comprehensive claims (not at fault) are not a good thing and CAN impact your rates. The simple fact of having fewer insurance companies to chose from is likely to be a financial impact.

I've explained myself. Can you tell me why you feel the other way? IE, if I damaged your property, should I just tell you to take it up with your insurance company and you'd be fine with that?

This is the VERY attitude I'm talking about. "What's the use of having insurance if you're afraid to use it?" is a quote from a TV ad presently repeated ad nauseam. As I highlighted in red, the OP isn't responsible for this fire damage. So he should make NO claim or ask for help from the company he is paying money to cover his RV? If it results in a change in his CLUE or his rates go up, then he should be compensated for that damage also.

If you damaged my property and tossed it off as, "Take it up with your insurance company." You can be damn sure the police and courts will be involved, along with notifying my insurance company of the damage and your cavalier attitude.

[gcamper]

If it was arson, then the person that started the fire would be responsible for the damage. Was the fire started by a camping world employee that was on the clock when he stared the fire?

[ScottyB410]

+1

As a quick caveat, let me say that my job is that of an Origin and Cause fire investigator, specializing in RV.

Care and Control aside, if my coach was ever involved in a similar incident, I would contact my Insurance Agent before the fire was extinguished.

Just my $0.02

Cheers
Scotty

[cb1000rider]

Originally Posted by bamaboy473

Look at the situation from a different perspective; that of the CFO and General Counsel of every service company in America.

If a company allows customer property onto their property, and in so doing provides blanket coverage for that property, what kind of insurance premiums would they pay..100X higher? Would you want to pay ten times the rate of repair in order to cover their higher costs?

If you service other people's property as part of your business, you should have insurance.

And yes, your rates should be reflective of the amount of damage that you do to that property, which should be near zero.

I can tell you (from experience) that Walmart and NTB have coverage for this exact scenario. And both don't allow customers into the service area. Most vehicle dealers don't allow customers to where the cars are being stored. Failing to provide secure storage creates liability.

When I was a kid, I remember my father's mechanic did European cars. They had some beautiful exotic cars in there (not dads) and I recall the mechanic saying that he hoped the insurance agent didn't stop by - as they'd probably drop him.

[cb1000rider]

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

This is the VERY attitude I'm talking about. "What's the use of having insurance if you're afraid to use it?" is a quote from a TV ad presently repeated ad nauseam. As I highlighted in red, the OP isn't responsible for this fire damage. So he should make NO claim or ask for help from the company he is paying money to cover his RV? If it results in a change in his CLUE or his rates go up, then he should be compensated for that damage also.

I'm for using my insurance if I'm responsible for an accident OR if I do something (through my action) that triggers a covered loss. I'm not for using my insurance to cover someone else's liability, especially when it costs me money up front (deductible) and likely penalizes me long term (CLUE).

I can tell you that as a savvy finance-oriented consumer, I've chosen not to make claims on my insurance when I had coverage. Typically those claims were minor damage. For example, I had hail blow through the skylights of my shop. I could have claimed it and netted $800 or so, but having that claim on my insurance wasn't worth it. Had the shop burned to the ground I would have claimed it.

I'm also for personal responsibility. If I'm servicing your property, I'm responsible for it while it's in my possession.

The reality of the insurance system is that even not being responsible for a loss can result in higher rates. That's the nature of actuarial statistics. I'm differentiating that it's BETTER for the OP to have CW make the claim that it is for him to trigger a comprehensive claim on his policy. It's better for his CLUE report and it's better for his wallet.

I think you're railing against how the system works and I completely agree with you, it's not exactly "fair". But the OP isn't likely to be compensated for loss of future insurability. Just like insurers don't usually compensate for "diminished value" - which is the value you lose when your CarFax doesn't come back clean.

Originally Posted by BFlinn181

If you damaged my property and tossed it off as, "Take it up with your insurance company." You can be damn sure the police and courts will be involved, along with notifying my insurance company of the damage and your cavalier attitude.

How is this case any different from that? I agree with you that the OP should sue if CW does nothing. There are 3 ways to do that:
1) Take it up himself (small claims, if <$10k)
2) Hire an attorney
3) File it on his insurance, in which case it *should* get subjugated.

1 and 2 don't impact his CLUE report or trigger a deducatable payment. #3 does.


I wish that insurance claims that are not at fault didn't impact your wallet or future rates, but that's simply not how it actually works.

[PbdBlue]

Originally Posted by wordofgodspe

Except if your vehicle is under the care of another. The same is even true if you let someone drive your car and they have auto insurance and they get in an accident. Their (if they were at fault) insurance would pay for your car and the other parties car. Your insurance would get involved if your friend didn't have coverage or the other party wasn't insured. Don't take for granted that your insurance automatically pays. To do so just allows insurance companies to take advantage of a system that used to work very well. Thanks for the post.

Not the way it is in CA and never has been. Insurance is on the vehicle not the driver. Many years ago when I was in college my then girlfriend crashed my car. My insurance paid the claim. Not hers.

[bamaboy473]

Originally Posted by cb1000rider

If you service other people's property as part of your business, you should have insurance.

And yes, your rates should be reflective of the amount of damage that you do to that property, which should be near zero.

.

Stuff happens that is accidental. If a shop takes in a Motor Home that's full of systems, quirks, shorts, leaks, etc. and the MH catches on fire and damages surrounding property, why should the shop pay that bill?


As a twist, what if the C&O report points to one MH as the cause. Should everybody else involved subrogate to that MH owner? What if that MH was yours?

If the MH owners that were affected have insurance, why shouldn't their own policies cover repairs?

Your statement that...your rates should be reflective of the amount of damage that you do to that property, begs the question of liability.

I think you and I can agree that the shop's insurance should pay IF they are found to be liable. We may dis-agree about the shop's insurance having to pay if the shop isn't liable.

[cb1000rider]

We agree. Although it's almost certainly accidental - I don't think accidental excuses liability in all cases.

If a MH one slot over is just sitting there (not serviced, no condition change) and catches fire, then I'm with you - then CW very well might not be responsible. Same as if it was suddenly struck by lightening while in the CW parking lot.

If that's the case, then I'd think about it differently, but if CW is talking about handling it and suddenly goes completely radio silent, that's not particularly helpful.

[Romer1]

Originally Posted by cb1000rider

We agree. Although it's almost certainly accidental - I don't think accidental excuses liability in all cases.

If a MH one slot over is just sitting there (not serviced, no condition change) and catches fire, then I'm with you - then CW very well might not be responsible. Same as if it was suddenly struck by lightening while in the CW parking lot.

If that's the case, then I'd think about it differently, but if CW is talking about handling it and suddenly goes completely radio silent, that's not particularly helpful.

Since this occurred on a Sunday when CW was closed does that change liability issues?