An insurance policy covers what it covers, not what it doesn't cover

By The West Virginia Record | Dec 16, 2011

Wouldn't it be great if you could buy insurance to cover the bad thing that happened after it happened?

Then you would be paying for insurance only when you needed it.

Careful drivers can go their whole lives without having a single automobile accident. Should they feel gloomy in their golden years, knowing that they never once made a claim on their insurance policies.

And how many people ever have their houses burn down? Sure, if you're the one person in the subdivision whose house catches on fire, you'll be glad you've got insurance. But what about the other 250 families? For decades they're protected against fire damage and nothing ever combusted. Not a single singe or sear or char to justify a claim. Is that a bad outcome?

Why doesn't someone offer an insurance policy that works like the morning-after pill? You don't buy it until you know you need it -- after one of those Britney-Spears, Oops-I-Did-It-Again moments.

"Oops, I wrecked my car yesterday and accidentally burnt down my house. I'd better get some of that morning-after insurance."

If you're nodding your head in agreement as if this all makes sense, you might want to ask for a tuition refund from every school you've ever attended. Either you didn't learn anything at all, or everything you learned was wrong.

Insurance is designed to protect a group of people against things that are unlikely to happen to any one of them. It pools the resources of many, in advance, to compensate the unfortunate few when disaster occurs.

The idea of buying insurance after an injury occurs –- or expecting an insurance company to compensate for something not covered in its policy -– is idiotic.

Our State Supreme Court understands this. That's why it recently overturned a lower court ruling that had required BrickStreet Mutual to pay $1.2 million to Summit Point Raceway for coverage the Raceway never had purchased.

Kudos to the state Supreme Court and shame on the lower court for making such a nonsensical ruling in the first place.

More News

The Record Network