Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 56
  1. Leke's Avatar
    Posts
    597 Posts
    Global Posts
    603 Global Posts
    #21  
    Its not like the Pre is a hot selling device. Patching and overclocking in my opinion allows me to tolerate Palms shortcoming with this device. I'm positive they're aware of the kernal patches and will take into consideration the next Pre with a faster processor. So for now if by chance it does fry the mobo, just turn the other cheek and replace it...
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by phidalgo View Post
    If the insurance company covering Sprint with the TEP plan would spend the money to investigate the claim, they would deny the claim for a phone replacement.

    And yes, there are exclusions within policies for "intentional acts".
    Oh boy, another one.

    Our other friend was so agitated by the idea of replacing a fried phone that he went and dug up a pdf of the insurance policy. According to him, the policy excludes loss caused by use of the phone "in a manner for which it was not designed or intended by the manufacturer." The manufacturer "designed" the device to be used as a smartphone. The manufacturer "intended" the device to be used as a smartphone. Whether the insurance policy excludes damage that MAY have occurred because of overclocking is a questionable proposition (Keep in mind that Pre phones overheated long before the overclocking came about. They just run hot--so conclusively determining that overclocking was the cause of damage to any phone is not something that anyone can do. All a consumer would know is that their phone died.)

    What you are claiming is that the installation of software on a device that the manufacturer does not support would constitute the same as usage in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. That is iffy, and certainly not made clear by the language of the policy.

    Insurance policies are strictly construed against the insurer, who is the party that drafts the language. Any ambiguities are resolved in favor of the insured. Had the insurance company wished to exclude software that the manufacturer does not support, it could have. Instead, it referred to "use", which is very broad, and includes the use as a smartphone.

    Because it is ambiguous, if there is any argument that I have a valid claim, and frankly, even if I don't, I am perfectly within my rights to file a claim with my insurer. It is not insurance fraud to present a claim to an insurance company. It is insurance fraud to manufacture a phony claim, or to lie to an insurer that is investigating a claim. The insurer, for its part, is perfectly within its rights to determine whether it wants to honor that claim. If I hand them the phone and tell them it is damaged, and ask for it to be replaced under my policy, I have committed no civil or criminal offense whatsoever. If they conduct an investigation, and ask me how it happened, I am perfectly able to say I don't know, it just didn't start one day. If they actually asked "did you have overclocking installed on it" then you do have to answer honestly. The thing is, they would never investigate or ask that question. They would just replace the phone. But if they did, and then they failed to replace the phone, then I would have a small claims action against them, and I believe I would prevail, because the policy is ambiguous and I believe the exclusion does not apply.

    The main point, though is that you do not have any idea what you are talking about.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by meriwether View Post
    Oh boy, another one.

    Our other friend was so agitated by the idea of replacing a fried phone that he went and dug up a pdf of the insurance policy. According to him, the policy excludes loss caused by use of the phone "in a manner for which it was not designed or intended by the manufacturer." The manufacturer "designed" the device to be used as a smartphone. The manufacturer "intended" the device to be used as a smartphone. Whether the insurance policy excludes damage that MAY have occurred because of overclocking is a questionable proposition (Keep in mind that Pre phones overheated long before the overclocking came about. They just run hot--so conclusively determining that overclocking was the cause of damage to any phone is not something that anyone can do. All a consumer would know is that their phone died.)

    What you are claiming is that the installation of software on a device that the manufacturer does not support would constitute the same as usage in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. That is iffy, and certainly not made clear by the language of the policy.

    Insurance policies are strictly construed against the insurer, who is the party that drafts the language. Any ambiguities are resolved in favor of the insured. Had the insurance company wished to exclude software that the manufacturer does not support, it could have. Instead, it referred to "use", which is very broad, and includes the use as a smartphone.

    Because it is ambiguous, if there is any argument that I have a valid claim, and frankly, even if I don't, I am perfectly within my rights to file a claim with my insurer. It is not insurance fraud to present a claim to an insurance company. It is insurance fraud to manufacture a phony claim, or to lie to an insurer that is investigating a claim. The insurer, for its part, is perfectly within its rights to determine whether it wants to honor that claim. If I hand them the phone and tell them it is damaged, and ask for it to be replaced under my policy, I have committed no civil or criminal offense whatsoever. If they conduct an investigation, and ask me how it happened, I am perfectly able to say I don't know, it just didn't start one day. If they actually asked "did you have overclocking installed on it" then you do have to answer honestly. The thing is, they would never investigate or ask that question. They would just replace the phone. But if they did, and then they failed to replace the phone, then I would have a small claims action against them, and I believe I would prevail, because the policy is ambiguous and I believe the exclusion does not apply.

    The main point, though is that you do not have any idea what you are talking about.

    I'm going to keep this simple.

    You do not understand insurance principles.

    Happy?
  4. #24  
    Another quickie...

    Buy a book from the AICPCU and tell me if you're point is still valid.

    Have fun.
  5. #25  
    well if mine blows up im gonna drop it in some water and claim water damage
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by hatchettjack View Post
    well if mine blows up im gonna drop it in some water and claim water damage
    Oh really?

    Is water damage a covered loss?
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by meriwether View Post

    Insurance policies are strictly construed against the insurer, who is the party that drafts the language. Any ambiguities are resolved in favor of the insured. Had the insurance company wished to exclude software that the manufacturer does not support, it could have. Instead, it referred to "use", which is very broad, and includes the use as a smartphone.
    Could you cite a source for this information?
  8. kalex's Avatar
    Posts
    253 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #28  
    People take it easy its a phone. its an electronic device, they fail. I have yet to see any reports of Pres failing from OC. Insurance companies make **** load of money because they charge u monthly premiums and very small amount of people make claims. If it wasn't the case, don't you think that companies would stop doing this if it wasn't profitable?

    All these drawn out arguments are funny and useless. you pay for insurance, if ur phone breaks u claim it. in most cases you still have to pay $100 deductible for it in addition to monthly payments. so whose winning? there is also CL or ebay where u can get pre for around $100-$150. look how many Pres are defective because of Palm's QA.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by kalex View Post
    People take it easy its a phone. its an electronic device, they fail. I have yet to see any reports of Pres failing from OC. Insurance companies make **** load of money because they charge u monthly premiums and very small amount of people make claims. If it wasn't the case, don't you think that companies would stop doing this if it wasn't profitable?

    All these drawn out arguments are funny and useless. you pay for insurance, if ur phone breaks u claim it. in most cases you still have to pay $100 deductible for it in addition to monthly payments. so whose winning? there is also CL or ebay where u can get pre for around $100-$150. look how many Pres are defective because of Palm's QA.
    Another example of an ignorant individual in regards to insurance.

    Please read about underwriting losses and claim loss in order to understand the insurance industry.

    Especially in this economic climate, PLEASEEEEEEE.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by phidalgo View Post
    I'm going to keep this simple.

    You do not understand insurance principles.

    Happy?
    After litigating insurance policies for 25 years, I think I understand them by now. I've shoved language a lot more well drafted than that down the throats of insurance companies that denied claims. Had they wanted to exclude damage caused by modification, they could have. Easily.

    So, there are 2 issues here. One is whether the language excludes a claim made after a person has overclocked their Pre. That proposition is iffy at best. The second is whether a consumer can make a claim on their policy if their phone gets fried. On that, there is no, none, zip, zero, nada debate. It is perfectly appropriate.

    <<edited by moderator>>
    Last edited by bevcraw; 05/16/2010 at 05:42 PM.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by bevcraw View Post
    Could you cite a source for this information?
    25 years of suing insurance companies.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by meriwether View Post
    After litigating insurance policies for 25 years, I think I understand them by now. I've shoved language a lot more well drafted than that down the throats of insurance companies that denied claims. Had they wanted to exclude damage caused by modification, they could have. Easily.

    So, there are 2 issues here. One is whether the language excludes a claim made after a person has overclocked their Pre. That proposition is iffy at best. The second is whether a consumer can make a claim on their policy if their phone gets fried. On that, there is no, none, zip, zero, nada debate. It is perfectly appropriate.

    Now, don't get your panties in a bunch or your ego all fired up. Just admit to yourself that you don't know what you are talking about, and go get another beer from the fridge so you can play armchair insurance guru somewhere else.
    Obviously since I'm an underwriter....

    I must be talking out of my "rear" end.

    Talking where we stand on the issue, do you not see my point?

    Please tell me.
  13. kalex's Avatar
    Posts
    253 Posts
    Global Posts
    728 Global Posts
    #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by phidalgo View Post
    Another example of an ignorant individual in regards to insurance.

    Please read about underwriting losses and claim loss in order to understand the insurance industry.

    Especially in this economic climate, PLEASEEEEEEE.
    Yes apparently I'm ignorant individual and you are sir are a theoretical musterbator. and can u explain to me what does our current economic climate has to do with overclocking Sprint Palm Pre. oh and by the way wasn't AIG (biggest insurance company in USA) partially responsible for our current economic climate?
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by phidalgo View Post
    Obviously since I'm an underwriter....

    I must be talking out of my "rear" end.

    Talking where we stand on the issue, do you not see my point?

    Please tell me.
    Hah! Now I know where you are coming from. Seriously, if you are an underwriter, and you read that language, you have to understand the problems with trying to enforce it against an overclocker. Either that, or you are not a good underwriter. Maybe you are just in sales.

    And you also have to concede that there is no issue whatsoever with presenting the claim and letting the insurance company decide what it wants to do. The only issue that could possibly arise is if the insurance company asks the insured if there was overclocking. Even then, the insurance company would have to prove that there was a causal connection between the overclocking and the damage that occurred (it could not deny a claim for water damage on the grounds that the phone was overclocked). And even then, the insured would have an argument that it could pursue in a court of law if the company denied the claim. Most people would not, but that is how class actions start.

    So, you are here, an insurance guy, telling people that they need to accede to the insurance company's position, in advance, instead of telling them to pursue their rights. Nice guy you are. I think we know who we can trust now.
  15. #35  
    I just reread the first part of your statement.

    If one admits that they overclocked their pre beyond stated specs, and makes a claim, it would be denied unless the insurer didn't care about losses.

    It's not iffy at best. If I made a claim stating I intentionally violated the policy, the claim would be denied.

    But, since you litigated insurance companies for the past 25 years, perhaps you won based on settlements.

    As we know, settlements are MUCH cheaper than pursing the court remedy.

    I wish i took you more seriously and actually read your post.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by meriwether View Post
    Hah! Now I know where you are coming from. Seriously, if you are an underwriter, and you read that language, you have to understand the problems with trying to enforce it against an overclocker. Either that, or you are not a good underwriter. Maybe you are just in sales.

    And you also have to concede that there is no issue whatsoever with presenting the claim and letting the insurance company decide what it wants to do. The only issue that could possibly arise is if the insurance company asks the insured if there was overclocking. Even then, the insurance company would have to prove that there was a causal connection between the overclocking and the damage that occurred (it could not deny a claim for water damage on the grounds that the phone was overclocked). And even then, the insured would have an argument that it could pursue in a court of law if the company denied the claim. Most people would not, but that is how class actions start.

    So, you are here, an insurance guy, telling people that they need to accede to the insurance company's position, in advance, instead of telling them to pursue their rights. Nice guy you are. I think we know who we can trust now.
    Isn't law the same way?

    Legal responsibility after all is based on perception and not absolute truth?

    OJ anyone?
    Last edited by phidalgo; 05/16/2010 at 05:51 PM. Reason: different thoughts mangled
  17. #37  
    Warning,

    If a Mod has had to edit your post, it would be a real good idea to review our Forum Guidelines.

    -Berd
  18. #38  
    If one admits that they overclocked their pre beyond stated specs, and makes a claim, it would be denied unless the insurer didn't care about losses.
    You again evidence an extreme misunderstanding of the claim process. A Pre stops working. You have insurance. You take it in and ask for it to be replaced. The Sprint guy looks at it, sees it doesn't work and orders you a refurb from Asurion. If they ask what happened, you tell them, truthfully, you don't know. Unless you are a forensic electronics specialist, you don't know what happened. All you know is it stopped working.

    In your world, you walk in, tell the guy that you overclocked your pre and that you thereby caused it to be bricked. Why you would be doing that in the course of filing a claim is a little strange, but that's the scenario you have posed.

    What you recommend is not required morally or legally, and is not even factually accurate. We don't know what happened when a Pre stops working, unless we took a hammer to it, or dropped it in water. We are not obligated to read an insurance contract in the light most favorable to the insurance company, accept an interpretation that they have not even made yet, and then concede that it is the correct interpretation, in order to "self-deny" our claim. We make claims, they process them, we sue them if we don't agree with the outcome.

    You are giving the forum members bad advice.

    It's not iffy at best. If I made a claim stating I intentionally violated the policy, the claim would be denied.
    Ah, but therein lies the rub. Your view begs the question of whether the policy language is ambiguous. There is absolutely no doubt that it is, and that what is meant by "use" in the "manner intended" by the manufacturer needs to be interpreted by a court before either side to the insurance contract can know what their legal rights are. The insurance company position, which Asurion has never even made, but you do on its behalf, would be iffy, if they did try to deny a claim on an overclocked Pre.

    You really should stop misleading forum members, and claiming that they are committing a criminal offense by submitting a perfectly valid insurance claim.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Warning,

    If a Mod has had to edit your post, it would be a real good idea to review our Forum Guidelines.

    -Berd
    Are there any forum guidelines on insurance company employees misleading forum members about their legal rights and responsibilities? Just curious. It seems to me to be more serious than some back and forth between posters.
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedar View Post
    To some guy earlier... Why would you show people an Iphone theme... You're trying to show them what a Pre can do, and it could come off as an iphone-wannabe.
    I like the iPhone theme for the irony, not because I am a fan of the iPhone.
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions