A close friend of mine had a car accident last month. While she was driving on the freeway, a large piece of a truck tire flew into her lane. She didn’t have time to check to see if she could change lanes and so did the exact right thing: she drove over it. The car was damaged but the insurance company paid for all but the deductible.
Those are the two pieces of good news.
But a week later her husband, whose name is on the policy, got a letter from her car insurance company. Here’s the key excerpt:
We are reaching out to confirm if a Child Passenger Restraint Safety Seat was in the vehicle during your recent accident. Please contact us at your earliest convenience so we may complete our investigation of this issue.
If you have already completed confirmation of a Child Passenger Restraint Safety Seat, not further action is needed.
Confirming the Child Passenger Restraint Safety Seat information is required under California Insurance Code 11580.011.
So her husband called to tell the relevant insurance company employee that there was no Child Passenger Restraint Safety Seat. He thought he would explain why and so he told the employee that no such seat was needed because, being in their 70s and not having young children, they had no need of one.
She thanked him and said that that was all she needed.
But her husband was curious and so he asked, “Why did you want to know?” She answered, “Because under California insurance regulations, if there was such a seat, we would have to pay for it.”
“Even if the seat wasn’t damaged"?” he asked.
“Yes,” she said.
So her husband went and checked the relevant regulation and found it. Here it is. And here’s the most relevant part:
(b) Every policy of automobile liability insurance, as described in Section 16054 of the Vehicle Code, shall provide liability coverage for replacement of a child passenger restraint system that was damaged or was in use by a child during an accident for which liability coverage under the policy is applicable due to the liability of an insured.
If there had been such a restraint, and if it had been damaged, then the insurance company would have to pay.
But why single out that particular item in a car. Do the insurance regulations not think that people have an ample incentive to make a claim for a damaged car seat if, indeed, the seat were damaged?
Moreover, there is some serious silliness. Note the “or was in use by a child during an accident for which liability coverage under the policy is applicable due to the liability of an insured” Why provide a replacement if it wasn’t damaged?
It seems that some legislator or regulator in California must have said, “Gee, people with children should have child safety seats and so let’s make it more likely by requiring that the insurance company pay for a replacement if the seat is damaged or even if it isn’t.”
My guess is that they didn’t think through the fact that, as I noted, the insured driver already has a pretty good incentive to make a claim for a damaged seat and they don’t take account of the fact that the added paperwork plus employee time on the phone is priced into car insurance rates.
California is so wonderful.