Several years ago, I wrote the following article:
If you have a few minutes, take a look at this short article. It’s one in a series of articles I’ve written about why insurance is not a commodity differentiated only by price, despite all the industry advertising you see to the contrary. In this article, I demonstrate why, even though most auto policies have a “racing” exclusion, you have to read the policy language carefully to appreciate the differences among policies as to what constitutes “racing” and is therefore excluded.
I mention this particular article because earlier this week, someone on LinkedIn sent me a message asking if I had see this 30-second insurance company TV commercial that involved drag racing:
Can you see how a consumer who knows nothing about insurance (in other words, EVERY consumer) could naturally presume that car insurance covers drag racing? The commercial, in fact, tells the drag racer that he’s saving money on his car insurance which apparently covers him at a drag strip. The fact is that, unless a state regulatory authority prohibits a racing exclusion, pretty much every personal auto policy excludes the ownership, maintenance, use, or entrustment of an auto inside a racing facility. And, as the article above demonstrates, some policies (including this insurer’s) exclude virtually ANY type of racing, even spontaneous street racing.
This brings me to the point of this article. Do insurance company marketing and advertising departments EVER consult with their claims departments before signing off on advertisements that involve policy coverages? Do insurance company employees who know something about policy coverages ever shoot an email to the home office advising that their current TV commercial might mislead consumers into thinking they have coverage for something they don’t?
I first blogged about this over 4 years ago, citing a couple of TV commercials:
Several months later, I was compelled to write a second article about another TV commercial:
This is article #3 on the subject. All too often, insurers seem more interested in being funny than being factual and here are two examples of that:
Misinformation isn’t funny. Is it?
Latest posts by Bill Wilson (see all)
- ISO’s New 2022 Homeowners Program - May 11, 2021
- Latest Litigation on COVID-19 Business Income Coverage - May 5, 2021
- Using “Big Data” to Make Unilateral Policy Coverage Changes - April 29, 2021