They don't write in Massachusetts.IMT out of Iowa is the company. They will steer you to an agent
Sounds like a "bailment" technicality ... supposedly courts see that as more liability. Possibly another excuse to dis & even penalize small service businesses.I'm looking for a new place to purchase affordable insurance. Our provider cancelled us because our employees drive detail shop ( not car wash) customer cars on the property. We have been drivng customer cars snce 1986.
This is insurance company BS since in the rest of the world Fixtures- stuff "Permanently Attached" to the real estate are part of the real estate, However "Trade Fixtures" are not treated that way. Car wash equipment would be a trade fixture. Agent should have known better. Lucky I did not get hit with an "Underinsurance" defense since I had $1 Million for Building and $250,000 for personal property and the insurance company claimed the equipment was part of the building. If you didn't count car wash equipment I probably needed less than 425,000 in personal property coveerage.Some agents lower their premium quote by having most of the car wash equipment as part of the "building coverage" categorized value vs the more "expensive personal property coverage" categorized value. If there are claims ... I am not sure of court precedents on that potential legal technicality??? A possible argument to self insure a bit more???
No offense ... trying not to be too cynical ... but it seems like kind of the craps to rely possibly a bit too much on luck???Lucky I did not get hit with an "Underinsurance" defense since I had $1 Million for Building and $250,000 for personal property and the insurance company claimed the equipment was part of the building.
No, it was a nightmare. Ended up suing the Insurance company after firing the public adjuster. Insurance company was a nightmare to deal with and litigation was extremely costly. Still litigating with the adjuster who wants to get paid for monies recovered thru litigation long after he was terminated.So possibly even though you did not have it in writing from the underwriter clarifying what was specifically allowed to be covered under the building ... the claim turned out OK for you???