Tagged in: Untagged
Blogs on Tehachapi's Social Network
Blogs written by the members of Tehachapi Community Guide
With the economy in a massive recession and consumers pinching pennies, I’ve encountered insurance agents and agency staff that are leading consumers down the “low road” to get "the sale". When it comes to home insurance quotes, I've been seeing a lot of more of what I refer to as "shaving".
Tagged in: Untagged
Empathy is a key skill necessary to be successful in our relationships at home and work. Empathy allows us to build bridges between others and ourselves. It is about listening and understanding other people’s feelings even if they are different. Remember that last time you felt disrespected? Maybe not listened to. How did it make you feel?
The reality is that the lack of empathy leads to poor communication and understanding others. The lack of empathy leads to a person that is filled with bitterness and anger. This can eventually consume a person to the point of anger that is displayed inappropriately leading them in a direction away from finding success in their relationships. A lack of empathy is a sign that people think only of themselves. They are concerned only with their own ideas and feelings. We all have known people who cannot think of anyone but himself or herself. They push their own issues while not seeing the needs of others.
When empathy skills are improved we show a better understanding of others. It helps us to understand others from within ourselves. This will help improve communication skills and improve your relationships. The word empathy means understanding. The more you understand your own self and own feelings.
So next time you are communicating with someone remember to listen with your heart!
Karina Narduzzi B.A., C.A.M.F.
Positive Solutions Anger Management and Executive Coaching
www.positivesolutions.org
The reality is that the lack of empathy leads to poor communication and understanding others. The lack of empathy leads to a person that is filled with bitterness and anger. This can eventually consume a person to the point of anger that is displayed inappropriately leading them in a direction away from finding success in their relationships. A lack of empathy is a sign that people think only of themselves. They are concerned only with their own ideas and feelings. We all have known people who cannot think of anyone but himself or herself. They push their own issues while not seeing the needs of others.
When empathy skills are improved we show a better understanding of others. It helps us to understand others from within ourselves. This will help improve communication skills and improve your relationships. The word empathy means understanding. The more you understand your own self and own feelings.
So next time you are communicating with someone remember to listen with your heart!
Karina Narduzzi B.A., C.A.M.F.
Positive Solutions Anger Management and Executive Coaching
www.positivesolutions.org
Tagged in: Untagged
Recently, I have learned of at least three men aged 50 years or more that have lost their jobs for various reasons. One was not sent to training when younger employees were, leaving him unable to grow with new technology. Another was systematically hounded and harassed until he spoke up and was labeled as insubordinate, and so on.
This practice of selectively weeding out older workers has become prevalent in our current economic times. Companies believe if they cut out the older, higher paid and experienced workers, they will save money and survive. In reality this could damage the workplace in several areas. Most people in this age bracket of 50 years plus have a different work ethic than today’s younger workers. They are usually dependable, on time, rarely take time off, have experience, and stay loyal to their job no matter what.
A man named Craig was recently laid off at a private heating and air-conditioning company. He had worked there for several years and had brought more than 20 plus years of experience to the company. Craig could see hints of possible layoff’s to come. As an estimator, Craig knew there were fewer new projects for the company.
The competition’s bids were all coming in within a few percent of each other, and there were more companies than ever bidding on even the smallest jobs. Revenue was down and he was under more pressure put on Craig to bid jobs more competitively in this economic downturn. A few months before being laid off, Craig was scheduled to attend training on new estimating software. Instead, the company sent a younger employee. This raised a “red flag”. After the other employee’s return, Craig noticed how the management was allowing the younger man to gradually “take over” his job. Sure enough, a few weeks later Craig was given a “pink slip”.
At another company, there were two men who, on separate occasions, were fired. Meet Joe and Mike. Joe was in his early 50’s. During his more than 25 years with the company he had been to work on time every day and rarely took sick time or vacation. Mike was in his early 60’s and wanted to work two more years before retiring. He had been working for the company weathering many changes and economic downturns for nearly 39 years. Both of these men were fired within 6 months of each other.
The company had gone through some recent changes and brought in a younger, less experienced supervisor that did not have an understanding how to effectively manage the people under him. He was demanding, called his employees derogatory names, and refused to help them when they asked. Mike and Joe tried to respect their boss even with his “angry outbursts” day after day. Neither of the men thought they would ever be in a hostile working environment, especially after so many years with the company. Their fears of being difficult for older men to compete in a limited job market were soon realized.
Mike and Joe went to talk to their union representative about their boss’ behavior. He had an explosive temper and caused them to feel like they were constantly “walking on eggshells”. The boss would use any occasion to single them out and chastise them. The environment at work was becoming very stressful and hostile because of this unruly boss with an anger problem.
Joe was the first to go. After strategically building a case of nit-picky and deliberate miscommunications and incidents of his own design, the boss called him in his office, announced that he had had enough of Joe and fired him.
A few weeks later, Mike went to work and was called in the boss’ office. The boss exploded in anger at Mike over something that he had expected Mike to do, but never communicated that expectation to Mike. The boss decided to send him home that day without pay.
Once again, Mike decided to go and seek the union shop steward’s assistance and filed a grievance against his boss for sending him home without pay. To Mike’s surprise he was given his day of pay back and able to return to work the next day.
A few weeks passed by and Mike could not help but feel that his days were numbered. His boss would make comments to him; and much like Joe, started to write him up for small mistakes instead of helping Mike do better, etc. Soon Mike finds out that his boss was to other workers about how he was ready to fire Mike because of several write-ups and made up accusations. Mike just did not want to fight this anymore and felt that the union had let him down. In much the same way as Joe, Mike was fired a few weeks later.
This begs the question: is this the type of work environment that is now the norm? With the economy shrinking and fewer jobs is this the type of discrimination that we will commonly see? In the end, employers will lose the very experienced and dependable workers that they relied on to build and grow their success. Is killing a company in the long term a valid reason to save on health insurance premiums and retirements? In the end the experience will be lost and there will not be people trained to take over. Who will suffer? All of us, as a nation will. Competition from foreign companies, many subsidized by their own governments (such as Airbus), will soon prevail.
Companies must be aware of who they have managing their employees and if they are creating hostile work environments. These environments open the company up to lawsuits, poor customer service, and employees with more sick days. Morale at work goes down and so does the quality of the work and the success of the company. The damage that anger and hostility creates in these environments should not be tolerated.
If companies have a problem with their managers or supervisors in this area, there is assistance. Anger and stress management classes or executive coaching can give the managers better tools that can assist them in managing their employees. Successful companies do not have managers that degrade or discriminate.
American companies could be losing their greatest assets, their experienced employees. Make sure your company does not waste their experience and as an employee know your rights. No one deserves to work in a hostile working environment.
Karina Narduzzi B.A., CA.M.F.
Positive Solutions Anger Management and Executive Coaching
661-303-5669
Tagged in: Untagged
By Carlo Narduzzi
I was remembering back to my days as an insurance professional in Washington State and how in 1993 they implemented health care reform and how it failed miserably. Thank goodness it was finally repealed. I thought this would make for very interesting research to be posted on my blog. Last week, while I was starting my research , I mentioned it to a friend of mine, Dan. Within an hour he called me with a link to this article written in 1997.
To my amazement, I couldn't have dreamed of writing a more complete historical account of the rise and fall of Washington State's health care reform debacle, let alone finding one such as this! Interestingly, the title of the article is, "The Rise and Repeal of the Washington State Health Plan: Lessons For America's State Legislators" Published on June 11, 1997 by Robert Cihak , Bob Williams and Peter Ferrara at the Heritage Foundation.
The direct link to this article, with footnotes is: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1997/06/BG1121nbsp-The-Rise-and-Repeal-of-the-Washington
Obviously, none of the legislators in Congress who voted for Health Care Reform bothered to look into past attempts at the same thing. 1993 was not that long ago. As it has been said, "Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it."
What is so amazing is this: if you change out the dates to 2010 and use "Federal" in place of "State", you'd think this was a current article about Obamacare. I invite you to take the time to read it and forward it to everyone you know, every media outlet you can think of and every state and federal representative you have.
This is concrete, historical proof that Obamacare should never have been proposed or passed and that for the good of the nation, it must be repealed immediatley. The existence of this historic, documented turn of events needs to be made public and incorporated in all efforts to repeal it.
Special thanks to Dan, the authors and the Heritage Foundation!
Tagged in: Untagged
By Carlo Narduzzi
With the slow economy, competition between businesses is heating up. This type of environment may not be filled with "consumer friendly" bargains. In an effort to undercut competition, many sales people tend to cut corners on what they disclose about their product or service. They know you're looking for a bargain, but like a cheap tool, what they're selling is likely to fall far short of your expectations and will let you down when you need it most.
Here's are some common examples of where I've seen some insurance sales agents cut coverage to be competitive when quoting:
AUTO INSURANCE: Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability
What it does: These coverages pay up to the policy limits for bodily injury or property damage you may cause in the operation of your insured motor vehicle. If you injure someone or damage their property and there isn't enough coverage to pay for what you've done, you're not going to have the privelege of walking away from your responsibility. Even bankruptcy may not protect you from a liability judgement. Without enough insurance, the people you've hurt will reach into your future paychecks, savings, investments and other assets.
How it should always be quoted: In California, it is reccomended for property owners to carry liability limits of at least $100,00o per person, $300,000 per accident for Bodily Injury and $100,000 for Property Damage liability (aka 100/300/100). For renters, it's adviseable to have at least $50,000 per person, $100,000 per accident for Bodily Injury and $50,000 for Property Damage liability (aka 50/100/50). In actuality, there's not a very big difference in premium when comparing these limits to the state minimums.
What "they" may do to cut corners: Agents may underquote this with the state minimum limits of $15,000 per person, $30,000 per accident for Bodlily Injury and $10,000 for property damage (aka 15/30/10). This is not nearly enough to pay for even one day in the hospital, let alone the cost to repair or replace a newer vehicle. In fact, California's state mandated minimum limits are so far below other states' that all California Auto insurance liability contracts are required to automatically "bump up" liability coverage to 25/50/25 when driving in another state! (But 15/30/10 is good enough for in-state driving??)
AUTO INSURANCE: Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury
What it does: This coverage provides benefits to you and people in your vehicle in the event of an injury caused by someone without insurance or without enough insurance to pay for the injuries they've caused, up to the policy limits of course.
How it should always be quoted: Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury coverage limits should always be equal to your policy's Bodily Injury Liability Limits, never less. After all, this coverage protects you from other people, so why should they have more protection than you? The actual savings in premium is minimal compared to the amount of protection that's been given up.
What "they" may do to cut corners: Just like with liability insurance coverage, sales agents may underquote this using the state minimum limits of $15,000 per person, $30,000 per accident. (aka 15/30) This is not nearly enough if you are seriusly injured in an accident. What did they save you? $5, $15? How was that worth it? Oh yeah, they had a lower quote...
HOMEOWNER, MOBILE HOME AND LANDLORD PROPERTY INSURANCE: Premises Liability
What it does: This coverage protects you, up to the policy limits, in the event of a liability claim occuring on your owned or rented property, such as if someone slips and falls on your icy porch, etc.
How it should always be quoted: In California, it is highly reccomended to carry a premises liability limit of at least $300,000 for a home you own. If you're an investor and have rentals, each building should have at least $1 million for premises liability.
What "they" may do to cut corners: Preferred companies don't usually offer a premises liability limit of less than $100,000. The actual savings in premium is minimal (Usually $30 to $45 a year) when compared to the $200,000 of protection that's been given up. Recently, I was working with an investor who received a quote from another local agent for a four-plex he was about the purchase. The premises liability limit quoted was only $25,000. What makes it worse, that agent never disclosed it. He just handed over the lowball quote. When the investor noticed it and brought it to the agent's attention, the agent actually explained how he felt that $25,000 was adequate. Obviously, it would have brought up the cost of the policy considerably and he really "needed" the sale.
HOMEOWNER, MOBILE HOME AND LANDLORD PROPERTY INSURANCE: Dwelling Coverage
What it does: The dwelling coverage amount is the maximum amount the insurance company will pay to reconstruct your home or rental property. This is also listed as "Coverage A" on most quotes.
How it should always be quoted: The dwelling coverage should always be equivalent to the estimated reconstruction cost of the home. To determine this, the agent enters specific information about your home into a computer program which calculates this. In this process, the agent will ask numerous questions about the home, i.e. year built, square footage, how many baths and kitchens there are, as well as what the quality of construction is. The quality of construction varies from the basic "builders grade", to "custom" on up to "luxury". As anyone who has remodeled a bathroom or kitchen knows, there is a big difference cost from "builders grade", to "custom", let alone "luxury".
What "they" may do to cut corners: Should an agent under-state the appropriate quality of construction or just happen to leave off a feaure like a second bathroom altogether, the reconstruction cost coverage will come out as much as $25-$75,000 less than their competitor's. With this artificially lower reconstruction cost estimate comes a lower dwelling coverage and thus a lower premium. Heaven help the homeowner if there is a fire and they expect to get their "custom" kitchen and bathrooms rebuilt when the agent rated them as "builders grade" just to get the sale! I actually had one person who owns a mobile home tell me they called a local office for a quote on their mobile home. Without asking any questions, the agent told her it would be $950 a year because they automatically set the dwelling coverage amount at $75,000 for all mobile homes. I did a proper replacement cost valuation of the mobile home and we insured it for $125,000. Sure, the premium was more, but there's actually enough insurance coverage to replace the structure!
Rules of thumb for consumers:
1. Always get at least three quotes from reputable companies, review them closely and compare them.
2. To keep the quotes comparable, sure to be consistent with all information you provide to the agents.
3. Make sure the agents actually take time to patiently go over the coverages, explain them in detail and answer any questions you have. If someone won't invest time to give you enough information to make an educated decision, then they're just trying to sell you a policy based solely on price alone.
4. Have the agents make changes that you want and revise their quotes accordingly.
5. If an agent makes you feel like you're "stupid", then go somewhere where they'll respect you and provide professional service and advice.
Insurance agents should always make it a point to empower consumers. That way, the client can make the best decision for themselves. Even if the customer decides to go with another quote they will always refer back to that one agent who actually gave them true service with integrity. In the long run, agents who do business like this will succeed and their agencies will grow. Remember, trust is always earned.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
3. Make sure the agents actually take time to patiently go over the coverages, explain them in detail and answer any questions you have. If someone won't invest time to give you enough information to make an educated decision, then they're just trying to sell you a policy based solely on price alone.
4. Have the agents make changes that you want and revise their quotes accordingly.
5. If an agent makes you feel like you're "stupid", then go somewhere where they'll respect you and provide professional service and advice.
Insurance agents should always make it a point to empower consumers. That way, the client can make the best decision for themselves. Even if the customer decides to go with another quote they will always refer back to that one agent who actually gave them true service with integrity. In the long run, agents who do business like this will succeed and their agencies will grow. Remember, trust is always earned.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
Tagged in: Untagged
By Carlo Narduzzi
As you can see by my previous posts on this subject, I don’t hold much regard for Health Care Reform in it’s current form. Not only is it Un-Constitutional and infringement on state’s rights, it’s financially impossible to sustain and discriminatory in its enforcement.
The essence of this law guarantees access to healthcare and requires everyone to participate or be fined. It did not, I repeat, did not guarantee the affordability of healthcare for anyone. As it was written, it is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable. It also exempts union health insurance plans as well as the Congressional health plan. How convenient.
For those people who are twisting the truth, let’s have a short lesson in reality. I’ve read the headlines where they say that repealing this law would hurt people. What a bunch of despicable liars! These people they're talking about were already hurting! Now, this law has compounded their misery! Make no mistake, whoever supported the law gave false hope to the uninsured and uninsurable. This falls squarely on the shoulders of supporters of the health care reform law. They are the ones who put this half-baked roller coaster of unsustainable promise into motion. Do we need heath care reform? Of course we do. However this is not the way to go about it.
Truth be known, not everyone is insurable. Even if they were, because of the way this pile of guano was written, soon very few people will actually be able to afford to participate. Is that why these twisted politicians wrote in the penalties for non-participants?
How many California families can afford $610 a month for health insurance? Surprise! That’s today’s actual cost for a high deductible family plan from a top insurance company. As a direct result of the health care reform law, the cost of their policy leaped by an additional $146 a month (31.4%) from $464 last year. Consumers cannot continue to bear these costs without a severe, negative economic impact, surely crushing any hope of a near-term recovery. Where is the common sense in all this?
Shame on people who support this law and twist the truth to defend it for the sake of political gain. They apparently come from the la-la-land of entitlements and have obviously confused welfare and entitlements with insurance.
I’m an insurance broker, a trusted and experienced professional in the business of insurance. Believe me, it’s all “mafia and gambling”. Okay, let’s just call it “contracts and probabilities” instead. Time for a short lesson on insurance…
THE CONTRACT: The principle of insurance is to contractually pool financial resources to provide funding to reserve for specific, anticipated, future needs of participants in the pool. For health insurance, the idea is to insure a pool of relatively healthy people and build up reserves in the event of illness or injury. The costs of which would be devastating to the individual, but, as a member of the pool, the financial burden is transferred to the resources of the pool, per the contract of service.
THE PROBABILITIES: This is where “actuaries” come into the picture. These people are the odds makers. They know statistically what the chances are of getting ill, the frequency of illness, the costs, everything. This information is used to determine whether or not someone is eligible to participate in the pool. The cost of participation is also based on these statistics. By defining the health qualification standards, the pool limits itself to initially healthy persons that would, over time, contribute enough to the pool to keep it viable.
SUMMARY: Insurance contractually pools and reserves funds to bear the financial load caused by a specific, anticipated, future event or condition that would otherwise financially devastate an individual outside of the pool. Participation in the pool is limited to those who initially qualify based on specific criteria. Persons who are already affected or afflicted by an event or condition specified in the contract are not eligible for participation. Persons who become affected or afflicted by the event or condition specified in the contract after participation receive benefits from the pool as specified in the contract. Rates for participation are based on probability of a claim and the loss history of the pool. Those who cannot afford the premium are also not eligible for participation.
If a person were a member of the pool prior to the onset of their condition, it’s only right that they should have their membership in the pool remain un-affected and receive full benefits up to the limitations of the contract. Long before health care reform, here in California, insurers were already barred from canceling policies of insured people who became ill. That is the right way. The pool takes a hit, perhaps resulting in a rate increase, but it is still viable, sustainable and affordable to the participants. The time of selection is at the time of application for coverage.
Under health care reform, people who are already chronically or seriously ill must be immediately accepted for participation in the pool. This is not sustainable. In this case, this swarm of people are immediately drawing off resources from the pool's reserves and participants premiums must go up to maintain the pool's viability. Thus defeating the aspects of the pool that made it sustainable and affordable. As stated earlier, to make up for these losses, rates are already shooting through the roof. So, how is this a good thing for anyone? Truth is, it isn’t.
Let’s put this in practical, everyday terms: Pretend there’s a new federal auto insurance reform law requiring all auto insurance companies to insure anyone who has a driver license. This means that your “preferred insurance company” who attracted you with low rates because they only insured “safe” drivers must now insure: convicted drunk drivers, drivers with multiple at fault accidents, multiple speeding tickets, prior suspensions, reckless driving convictions and more.
Certainly, your auto insurance company isn’t about to go into debt or out of business. You are now definitely going to be paying through the nose for auto insurance. So what’s the difference between the all-to-real health insurance reform law and this hypothetical auto insurance reform law? None.
We do need reforms, we do need programs for people in need, but this law is so poorly conceived it’s not helping anyone and is bringing our nation to the brink of financial ruin. Please support the immediate repeal of this law before we are dragged over the edge.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
As you can see by my previous posts on this subject, I don’t hold much regard for Health Care Reform in it’s current form. Not only is it Un-Constitutional and infringement on state’s rights, it’s financially impossible to sustain and discriminatory in its enforcement.
The essence of this law guarantees access to healthcare and requires everyone to participate or be fined. It did not, I repeat, did not guarantee the affordability of healthcare for anyone. As it was written, it is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable. It also exempts union health insurance plans as well as the Congressional health plan. How convenient.
For those people who are twisting the truth, let’s have a short lesson in reality. I’ve read the headlines where they say that repealing this law would hurt people. What a bunch of despicable liars! These people they're talking about were already hurting! Now, this law has compounded their misery! Make no mistake, whoever supported the law gave false hope to the uninsured and uninsurable. This falls squarely on the shoulders of supporters of the health care reform law. They are the ones who put this half-baked roller coaster of unsustainable promise into motion. Do we need heath care reform? Of course we do. However this is not the way to go about it.
Truth be known, not everyone is insurable. Even if they were, because of the way this pile of guano was written, soon very few people will actually be able to afford to participate. Is that why these twisted politicians wrote in the penalties for non-participants?
How many California families can afford $610 a month for health insurance? Surprise! That’s today’s actual cost for a high deductible family plan from a top insurance company. As a direct result of the health care reform law, the cost of their policy leaped by an additional $146 a month (31.4%) from $464 last year. Consumers cannot continue to bear these costs without a severe, negative economic impact, surely crushing any hope of a near-term recovery. Where is the common sense in all this?
Shame on people who support this law and twist the truth to defend it for the sake of political gain. They apparently come from the la-la-land of entitlements and have obviously confused welfare and entitlements with insurance.
I’m an insurance broker, a trusted and experienced professional in the business of insurance. Believe me, it’s all “mafia and gambling”. Okay, let’s just call it “contracts and probabilities” instead. Time for a short lesson on insurance…
THE CONTRACT: The principle of insurance is to contractually pool financial resources to provide funding to reserve for specific, anticipated, future needs of participants in the pool. For health insurance, the idea is to insure a pool of relatively healthy people and build up reserves in the event of illness or injury. The costs of which would be devastating to the individual, but, as a member of the pool, the financial burden is transferred to the resources of the pool, per the contract of service.
THE PROBABILITIES: This is where “actuaries” come into the picture. These people are the odds makers. They know statistically what the chances are of getting ill, the frequency of illness, the costs, everything. This information is used to determine whether or not someone is eligible to participate in the pool. The cost of participation is also based on these statistics. By defining the health qualification standards, the pool limits itself to initially healthy persons that would, over time, contribute enough to the pool to keep it viable.
SUMMARY: Insurance contractually pools and reserves funds to bear the financial load caused by a specific, anticipated, future event or condition that would otherwise financially devastate an individual outside of the pool. Participation in the pool is limited to those who initially qualify based on specific criteria. Persons who are already affected or afflicted by an event or condition specified in the contract are not eligible for participation. Persons who become affected or afflicted by the event or condition specified in the contract after participation receive benefits from the pool as specified in the contract. Rates for participation are based on probability of a claim and the loss history of the pool. Those who cannot afford the premium are also not eligible for participation.
If a person were a member of the pool prior to the onset of their condition, it’s only right that they should have their membership in the pool remain un-affected and receive full benefits up to the limitations of the contract. Long before health care reform, here in California, insurers were already barred from canceling policies of insured people who became ill. That is the right way. The pool takes a hit, perhaps resulting in a rate increase, but it is still viable, sustainable and affordable to the participants. The time of selection is at the time of application for coverage.
Under health care reform, people who are already chronically or seriously ill must be immediately accepted for participation in the pool. This is not sustainable. In this case, this swarm of people are immediately drawing off resources from the pool's reserves and participants premiums must go up to maintain the pool's viability. Thus defeating the aspects of the pool that made it sustainable and affordable. As stated earlier, to make up for these losses, rates are already shooting through the roof. So, how is this a good thing for anyone? Truth is, it isn’t.
Let’s put this in practical, everyday terms: Pretend there’s a new federal auto insurance reform law requiring all auto insurance companies to insure anyone who has a driver license. This means that your “preferred insurance company” who attracted you with low rates because they only insured “safe” drivers must now insure: convicted drunk drivers, drivers with multiple at fault accidents, multiple speeding tickets, prior suspensions, reckless driving convictions and more.
Certainly, your auto insurance company isn’t about to go into debt or out of business. You are now definitely going to be paying through the nose for auto insurance. So what’s the difference between the all-to-real health insurance reform law and this hypothetical auto insurance reform law? None.
We do need reforms, we do need programs for people in need, but this law is so poorly conceived it’s not helping anyone and is bringing our nation to the brink of financial ruin. Please support the immediate repeal of this law before we are dragged over the edge.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
Tagged in: Untagged
Some might be asking what a social network is or why we decided to build this one. A social network, or an online community, allows people to do what they do everyday - just now online. We talk to people, share stories, give feedback regarding likes and dislikes and network with one another all the time. A social network usually focuses on a few popular areas of everyday life and makes sharing those things online easy and fun.
The Tehachapi Community Guide has done exactly that, with a twist.
Tagged in: Untagged
By Carlo Narduzzi
This is a very important question. The answer is: it depends. Why’s that? Insurance policies are contracts which specify who/what is covered, who/what is excluded and the conditions under which there is and isn’t coverage. Company “A” will always offer a different contract than company “B”. Plus, policy contracts can also vary within the same company. There are also state laws that apply to vehicle accidents and liability.
Let’s look at an example. You’ve borrowed your friend’s car and have just rear-ended the car in front of you. Of course, your friend expects you and your insurance company to be taking care of the damage to his car, any injuries you’ve caused and damage to the car you’ve just hit. After all you were driving, right?
In California, the liability trail begins with the vehicle, not the driver. So, your friend and his insurance company are first in line, not you. Can the person you hit sue you too? Yes, they can. Will your insurance policy protect you? Surprisingly, not as completely as you might expect.
Before I go any further I need to let you know that this particular subject is a “grey area” of insurance. When researching this, I interviewed claims adjusters and read insurance contracts. Midway through this process, I realized if I provide overly specific detail here, it would be a mistake. You see, there are so many variables, i.e. was your vehicle available and in working order, did the borrowed car have insurance at the time of the accident, etc.
So what did I learn? Suffice it to say, if you can avoid it, don’t borrow anyone else’s car and don’t let anyone borrow yours!
Here are some factors that will help make this a less painful situation: your car should be unavailable or broken down, the car you’re borrowing must be insured, it should have collision coverage and that insurance policy must cover “permissive use” drivers.
If you’re expecting your insurance to pay to repair the vehicle you borrowed, then your vehicle (remember, the one you couldn’t use because it wasn’t available and/or it was broken down?) needed to have collision coverage on it at the time of the accident.
Will your policy pay to repair the vehicle you borrowed if you have an accident? Maybe.
Will the insurance company for the borrowed car try to recover the money (subrogate against you) they paid for the accident you caused? Very likely.
This type of claim is not “cut and dried.” Accidents involving borrowed cars are fortunately not that common. Typically, the adjusters, supervisors and claim managers weigh the mitigating circumstances; policy terms; conditions and limitations; existing coverage; applicable laws and policy exclusions before a decision about coverage is made.
In an ideal situation, here’s how things should work:
For property damage and bodily injury liability, the policy for the borrowed car pays the liability claim up to the policy limits. If it has collision coverage, then that policy pays to repair the borrowed car, less the applicable deductible.
Should the borrowed car’s policy liability limits be exceeded then the driver’s policy would be available to pay what’s left, up to that policy’s limits. If those are exceeded, then the owner of the borrowed car and the driver can be sued for the balance.
If the borrowed car doesn’t have collision, then the driver’s policy most likely won’t pay to fix it. In some cases, if the driver’s car has collision, then that policy may provide collision coverage, less the applicable deductible. That’s a big maybe.
The next question is, if there is collision coverage to repair the borrowed car, then who pays the deductible? Owner of the borrowed car or the driver? If the owner’s policy pays, then as far as the insurance policy is concerned, the deductible is the owner’s responsibility. That’s likely to be a decision made between the borrowed car’s owner and the driver that borrowed it.
One last thing, if the borrowed car isn’t insured at the time of the accident, then the driver’s insurance may not cover anything at all. That’s a scary thought.
In the end, the owner of the borrowed car is first in line to pay for the bodily injury and damages caused by the driver. The driver may also be held responsible. The insurance company for the borrowed car can go after the driver to recover its costs in paying the claim. Coverage can be limited or declined by either company. Both the car owner and the driver can be sued and can conceivably sue each other. What a mess!
Suffice it to say, it’s not a good idea to borrow a car or let anyone borrow yours.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
This is a very important question. The answer is: it depends. Why’s that? Insurance policies are contracts which specify who/what is covered, who/what is excluded and the conditions under which there is and isn’t coverage. Company “A” will always offer a different contract than company “B”. Plus, policy contracts can also vary within the same company. There are also state laws that apply to vehicle accidents and liability.
Let’s look at an example. You’ve borrowed your friend’s car and have just rear-ended the car in front of you. Of course, your friend expects you and your insurance company to be taking care of the damage to his car, any injuries you’ve caused and damage to the car you’ve just hit. After all you were driving, right?
In California, the liability trail begins with the vehicle, not the driver. So, your friend and his insurance company are first in line, not you. Can the person you hit sue you too? Yes, they can. Will your insurance policy protect you? Surprisingly, not as completely as you might expect.
Before I go any further I need to let you know that this particular subject is a “grey area” of insurance. When researching this, I interviewed claims adjusters and read insurance contracts. Midway through this process, I realized if I provide overly specific detail here, it would be a mistake. You see, there are so many variables, i.e. was your vehicle available and in working order, did the borrowed car have insurance at the time of the accident, etc.
So what did I learn? Suffice it to say, if you can avoid it, don’t borrow anyone else’s car and don’t let anyone borrow yours!
Here are some factors that will help make this a less painful situation: your car should be unavailable or broken down, the car you’re borrowing must be insured, it should have collision coverage and that insurance policy must cover “permissive use” drivers.
If you’re expecting your insurance to pay to repair the vehicle you borrowed, then your vehicle (remember, the one you couldn’t use because it wasn’t available and/or it was broken down?) needed to have collision coverage on it at the time of the accident.
Will your policy pay to repair the vehicle you borrowed if you have an accident? Maybe.
Will the insurance company for the borrowed car try to recover the money (subrogate against you) they paid for the accident you caused? Very likely.
This type of claim is not “cut and dried.” Accidents involving borrowed cars are fortunately not that common. Typically, the adjusters, supervisors and claim managers weigh the mitigating circumstances; policy terms; conditions and limitations; existing coverage; applicable laws and policy exclusions before a decision about coverage is made.
In an ideal situation, here’s how things should work:
For property damage and bodily injury liability, the policy for the borrowed car pays the liability claim up to the policy limits. If it has collision coverage, then that policy pays to repair the borrowed car, less the applicable deductible.
Should the borrowed car’s policy liability limits be exceeded then the driver’s policy would be available to pay what’s left, up to that policy’s limits. If those are exceeded, then the owner of the borrowed car and the driver can be sued for the balance.
If the borrowed car doesn’t have collision, then the driver’s policy most likely won’t pay to fix it. In some cases, if the driver’s car has collision, then that policy may provide collision coverage, less the applicable deductible. That’s a big maybe.
The next question is, if there is collision coverage to repair the borrowed car, then who pays the deductible? Owner of the borrowed car or the driver? If the owner’s policy pays, then as far as the insurance policy is concerned, the deductible is the owner’s responsibility. That’s likely to be a decision made between the borrowed car’s owner and the driver that borrowed it.
One last thing, if the borrowed car isn’t insured at the time of the accident, then the driver’s insurance may not cover anything at all. That’s a scary thought.
In the end, the owner of the borrowed car is first in line to pay for the bodily injury and damages caused by the driver. The driver may also be held responsible. The insurance company for the borrowed car can go after the driver to recover its costs in paying the claim. Coverage can be limited or declined by either company. Both the car owner and the driver can be sued and can conceivably sue each other. What a mess!
Suffice it to say, it’s not a good idea to borrow a car or let anyone borrow yours.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
Tagged in: Untagged
By Carlo Narduzzi
We’ve all heard and seen those ads that entice us with: “Save a bundle on auto insurance with one phone call” or, “Get life insurance cheaper online.” Sure you may end up saving a few dollars today, but without the advice of a licensed professional, you could be setting you and your family up for a real financial disaster tomorrow…
Plain and simple, an insurance policy is a contract. You truly get what you pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. For example, one auto insurance contract may include all the bells and whistles in a package, while another is a bare-boned skeleton. Both insurance contracts have restrictions, limitations, exclusions and other language that can severely limit the protection they provide. One gives you broader protection than the other. Yet, regardless of major differences, they’re both auto insurance policies, right?
If you act as your own agent, will you know the difference between the contract that provides the protection you need and the contract that doesn’t? Without proper training or experience, you’re taking a very serious gamble. Without an agent to advise you, will you be sure that the lower cost option will have the protection you and your family actually need?
Plus, all insurance companies are not financially equal. It’s important to know how financially stable an insurance company is. Sure you paid less, but they also made less. Will they be able to pay your claim when the time comes? Or will they go broke beforehand? Where do you look? How will you know? Every insurance company is rated by several independent rating companies to include A.M. Best, Weiss and Standard and Poors. You can access insurance company financial ratings online or at your local public library. Perhaps the single most overlooked aspect of insurance buying is determining how much you have to lose and the correct amount insurance protection you really need. That process is critically important and entails much more than I could ever describe in this blog post.
Good news is, there are people out there ready to help you. Honest, sincere professionals that know how to use these valuable tools to accomplish your goals and save you money. I’ll give you ten guesses to tell me who that could be, and the first nine don’t count! Of course, the answer is to call on a licensed insurance agent to help you through this process. So, be very careful when buying insurance without the help of an agent. You want to be sure the insurance policies you’re counting on are ready to protect you at the worst possible moment, when you need them most.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
We’ve all heard and seen those ads that entice us with: “Save a bundle on auto insurance with one phone call” or, “Get life insurance cheaper online.” Sure you may end up saving a few dollars today, but without the advice of a licensed professional, you could be setting you and your family up for a real financial disaster tomorrow…
Plain and simple, an insurance policy is a contract. You truly get what you pay for. Nothing more, nothing less. For example, one auto insurance contract may include all the bells and whistles in a package, while another is a bare-boned skeleton. Both insurance contracts have restrictions, limitations, exclusions and other language that can severely limit the protection they provide. One gives you broader protection than the other. Yet, regardless of major differences, they’re both auto insurance policies, right?
If you act as your own agent, will you know the difference between the contract that provides the protection you need and the contract that doesn’t? Without proper training or experience, you’re taking a very serious gamble. Without an agent to advise you, will you be sure that the lower cost option will have the protection you and your family actually need?
Plus, all insurance companies are not financially equal. It’s important to know how financially stable an insurance company is. Sure you paid less, but they also made less. Will they be able to pay your claim when the time comes? Or will they go broke beforehand? Where do you look? How will you know? Every insurance company is rated by several independent rating companies to include A.M. Best, Weiss and Standard and Poors. You can access insurance company financial ratings online or at your local public library. Perhaps the single most overlooked aspect of insurance buying is determining how much you have to lose and the correct amount insurance protection you really need. That process is critically important and entails much more than I could ever describe in this blog post.
Good news is, there are people out there ready to help you. Honest, sincere professionals that know how to use these valuable tools to accomplish your goals and save you money. I’ll give you ten guesses to tell me who that could be, and the first nine don’t count! Of course, the answer is to call on a licensed insurance agent to help you through this process. So, be very careful when buying insurance without the help of an agent. You want to be sure the insurance policies you’re counting on are ready to protect you at the worst possible moment, when you need them most.
Want to keep up with the latest information about Tehachapi home, auto, life, business and health insurance? For this and links to my other online resources, visit and "like" my agency Facebook page: http://tinyurl.com/y3egmj4
Tagged in: Untagged
