Dargo
Super Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,974
- Location
- S. IN
- Tractor
- Jinma, Foton, TYM, Belarus, Yanmar, Branson, Montana, Mahindra and maybe some green and orange too.
1*The lender ain't the snag in this case.
The insurer is the one out of bounds.
Sorry LB, but no entity mentioned thus far appears to be "out of bounds". If you don't think lenders have good reason to make darn sure they are protected against losses you've missed the news for the last year or so.
2* This has nothing to do with a loss payee clause in an insurance policy .
Okay, then please tell me precisely to what this conversation is germane if it is not pertinent to the loss payee clause.
3*The lender hain't the do e here it's the insurer who's not doing it rite.
Actually LB, there really is no wrong being perpetrated by either his homeowner's insurance company or the lender based upon the limited information that has been thus far given. The lender is simply enforcing the contractual obligations as agreed to by the debtor. By accepting the original poster's money, his insurer accepted certain very specific fiduciary responsibilities that are clearly listed on the declaration page of his policy. If they are not listed there, they are listed by other clauses or covenants listed separately in the policy that would be easily established.
4*mffarmall already has that - ie - coverage on his tractor.
Perhaps and perhaps not. If there is unassailable coverage by the debtor's current policy specifically listing his tractor as collateral, his insurer would have no reason to refrain from sending proof of such coverage to the lender.
5*Nope they won't not if they aren't listed as the loss payee in the policy.
Um, how you misinterpreted this is beyond me.
6*Obtaining the loan is not the OPs problem, he already has it.
The only party in error here is the insurance company.
Precisely how would confuse anything written here to refute the presence of an existing lender agreement between Wells Fargo and the original poster??
I don't see how any insurer with a rule like mffarmalls insurer has could stay in business very long.
LB, I'm relatively confident that you'll find that most of the prominent insurers in this country currently writing homeowners insurance have been in business for many decades and have survived losses from tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, theft, vandalism, fire etc. They didn't survive that time frame and maintain profitability without assurance that their collateral is properly insured by their debtors. Most every insurance company also has reinsurance companies behind them to mitigate any large losses. As a board member of an insurance company myself, I would never consider reinsuring any insurance company with policies that do not protect themselves.