Insurance Loan Insurance ?

[mffarmall]

I have a loan on my tractor for 8,ooo by Wells Fargo Financial. I also have it covered under my home owners ins.

Problem: Wells wants a certificate saying the are lose payee and my insurance only gives a blanket policy. In simple words, they won't say Wells fargo gets the money, Wells would need to get it from me.

So I am forced to take $27.00 a month extra on my loan to cover insurance. I have called around with no luck.

My ?
Does anyone know of a company that will cover the tractor or loan from lose in Colorado for under $27.00 a month or a flat rate of under 100.00 for the year? I only use it to clean up my property so I don't need commercial or crop ins.

 

[LBrown59]

I have a loan on my tractor for 8,ooo by Wells Fargo Financial. I also have it covered under my home owners ins.

Problem: Wells wants a certificate saying the are lose payee and my insurance only gives a blanket policy. In simple words, they won't say Wells fargo gets the money, Wells would need to get it from me.

So I am forced to take $27.00 a month extra on my loan to cover insurance. I have called around with no luck.

My ?
Does anyone know of a company that will cover the tractor or loan from lose in Colorado for under $27.00 a month or a flat rate of under 100.00 for the year? I only use it to clean up my property so I don't need commercial or crop ins.

I never heard of an insurance co that won't do that.
maybe you need to change insurers.

 

[Woodland]

Or pick another bank?

 

[Dargo]

Lenders definitely can require insurance and require that they be the first loss payee. They can even require life and/or disability insurance on the loan. They just cannot require you to get the insurance through them. My guess is the tractor in question isn't one from what is considered a major brand. Lenders are scared now and are doing things they didn't before. You should be able to call your ins co and get a specific rider covering your tractor for the dollar amount of your loan for not much money. WF will accept that.

One of my old college buddies has had his own agency for years. Like many agents now, he also can arrange loans for his customers. He told me that most of his lending sources will now not loan money on what they consider an "off brand" tractor unless the customer has over half down and a spotless credit history. I think that practice may put some of the "off brand" companies under in today's economy.

 

[LBrown59]

Or pick another bank?

That probably wouldn't help here since it is the insurer at fault not the bank.

 

[SnowRidge]

Does your contract provide for a loss payee clause? If not, I would tell them to stick it. If they just require insurance, mail them a copy of your HO insurance, and tell that that's all they get. If they start dinging you for insurance without a clause in the contract or your explicit permission, file a complaint with your state insurance commissioner.

BTW, I would not expect an insurance company to provide loss payee papers on stuff covered under a blanket homeowners policy. If the item were listed and there was an extra premium for coverage, that's a different matter.

 

[Dargo]

Does your contract provide for a loss payee clause? If not, I would tell them to stick it. If they just require insurance, mail them a copy of your HO insurance, and tell that that's all they get. If they start dinging you for insurance without a clause in the contract or your explicit permission, file a complaint with your state insurance commissioner.

Unless I'm mistaken, I believe the original poster is talking about his loan on his tractor. If that is the case, Wells Fargo will definitely have explicitly worded clauses that require the debtor to purchase and maintain full coverage insurance for the collateral, in this case the tractor, throughout the course of the loan and have Wells Fargo clearly designated as the first loss payee.

If that is the case, and I'm reading it as a loan for his tractor, they have the option to call the loan as well as force place insurance coverage. Being that Wells Fargo isn't exactly very stable, if they think they can recover the principle, they very well could simply call the loan and demand immediate payment in full. If full payment is not made immediately, they will repo the tractor. The verbiage in loan contracts is very specific and very strict. In the past loan companies have been relatively lax in how hard they push their requirements. That is no longer the case.

 

[LBrown59]

1*Lenders definitely can require insurance and require that they be the first loss payee. They can even require life and/or disability insurance on the loan. They just cannot require you to get the insurance through them.
2*My guess is the tractor in question isn't one from what is considered a major brand.
3*Lenders are scared now and are doing things they didn't before.
4* You should be able to call your ins co and get a specific rider covering your tractor for the dollar amount of your loan for not much money.
5*WF will accept that.
6*One of my old college buddies told me that most of his lending sources will now not loan money on what they consider an "off brand" tractor unless the customer has over half down and a spotless credit history. .

1*The lender ain't the snag in this case.
The insurer is the one out of bounds.
2* This has nothing to do with a loss payee clause in an insurance policy .
3*The lender hain't the do e here it's the insurer who's not doing it rite.
4*mffarmall already has that - ie - coverage on his tractor.
5*Nope they won't not if they aren't listed as the loss payee in the policy.
6*Obtaining the loan is not the OPs problem, he already has it.
The only party in error here is the insurance company.
I don't see how any insurer with a rule like mffarmalls insurer has could stay in business very long.

 

[redneckford]

Had a customer that thought his home owners insurance covered his tractor---when down the road to pull someone out of the ditch(Canal) you guessed it the tractor fell in the canal also---Insurance would not pay a dime because the unit was off his property?? Fought it in court and the insurance company won they always win@@@ He had paid cash for the tractor.

 

[Dargo]

Had a customer that thought his home owners insurance covered his tractor---when down the road to pull someone out of the ditch(Canal) you guessed it the tractor fell in the canal also---Insurance would not pay a dime because the unit was off his property?? Fought it in court and the insurance company won they always win@@@ He had paid cash for the tractor.

That's what I attempted to point out in basic legal terms. I'm sorry that LBrown59 completely missed that part. That's why I suggested that he get a specific rider for his tractor (sorry LB, but I thought it was clear to everyone why I suggested that - to list Wells Fargo as the loss payee) to satisfy his lender's requirements. Lenders know that some non-listed large assets, like a tractor, may not be specifically covered. That is why they require a specific document showing coverage and them listed as the loss payee.

 

[Dargo]

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.

 

[SnowRidge]

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.

Dargo, I think you need to carefully reread what you wrote above. It makes no sense as written. I don't think it is what you intended to say.

 

[redneckford]

Dargo, I think you need to carefully reread what you wrote above. It makes no sense as written. I don't think it is what you intended to say.

many insurance companies make alot of loans themselves and sell insurance for those loans---they have "their" your cake and eat it for you!!!

 

[skidoo]

Or pick another bank?

I second that... Or pay it off quickly. For me, Wells Fargo is too big, too and too arrogant to deal with...

 

[Dargo]

Dargo, I think you need to carefully reread what you wrote above. It makes no sense as written. I don't think it is what you intended to say.

Sorry, I look at insurance companies as if I want to reinsure them or not; looking at their portfolio of business, their liquidity, their security within what they insure, how they are invested, how diversified they are, their management staff as well as their P&L sheet. RedneckFord is correct. Traditionally one of the most lucrative investments for insurance companies is in lending, but it must be secure lending.

 

[BigD23]

Had a customer that thought his home owners insurance covered his tractor---when down the road to pull someone out of the ditch(Canal) you guessed it the tractor fell in the canal also---Insurance would not pay a dime because the unit was off his property?? Fought it in court and the insurance company won they always win@@@ He had paid cash for the tractor.

Well taken point...As usual, we learn from others mistakes.

Don

 

[deere755]

I have learned that Insurance is only as good as the agent. I had my 755 insured through my homeowners which allowed me to use it off my property as long as I was not using it for hire according to my agent. My son was using it this past spring for wild life plots in other words for hire. I went back in to talk to our new agent about getting some insurance to cover this and he asked me why we didn't have it insured under our farm policy. I explained that we kept it off the farm and at our residence. His next question was why wasn't my home insured as a farm dwelling. To make a long story short we now have one policy on everything and now the tractor is covered to use as we please. We also put my Pickup truck under a farm rate and lowered the premium on it. It makes me mad to think that I have been over paying all these years and paying two policies instead of one.

 

[hr3]

mffarmall..

Are you telling us that you have insurance for 27.00 a mo. "OR" 100.00 a year??? If so,,you will never beat that price,, I don't think,,not for full coverage,, When i bought my Kubota,,, I financed 13,000.00.. they charged me 1,148.85 for the life of the loan,,around 16.00 a mo. I bought it 2 years ago,,just paid it off early..and got a check back for a little over a grand.. My insurance company wanted 35.00 a mo. to insure it the way Kubota wanted it,, If you are only being charged 100.00 a year..that's a deal for our part of the country...

My 2 cent's Hr3

 

[LBrown59]

I have a loan on my tractor for 8,ooo by Wells Fargo Financial. I also have it covered under my home owners ins.

Problem: Wells wants a certificate saying the are lose payee and my insurance only gives a blanket policy. In simple words, they won't say Wells fargo gets the money, Wells would need to get it from me.

So I am forced to take $27.00 a month extra on my loan to cover insurance. I have called around with no luck.

My ?
Does anyone know of a company that will cover the tractor or loan from lose in Colorado for under $27.00 a month or a flat rate of under 100.00 for the year? I only use it to clean up my property so I don't need commercial or crop ins.

So I am forced to take $27.00 a month extra on my loan to cover insurance.
No you're not.
If you take the 27 policy you can cancel the policy you now have.
You don't need 2 policies because only one would pay a claim anyhow.
It is illegal for the lender to require that you take the 27 policy from them/so find another insurer.

L . B .

 

[Dargo]

So I am forced to take $27.00 a month extra on my loan to cover insurance.
No you're not.
If you take the 27 policy you can cancel the policy you now have.
You don't need 2 policies because only one would pay a claim anyhow.
It is illegal for the lender to require that you take the 27 policy from them/so find another insurer.

L . B .

There ya go LB, now we are on the same page. Sorry if I was unclear previously. I was tired and in a hurry. Believe me, it's not exactly great reading to go over insurance regulations, actuarial statistics, frequency and severity statistics, trend propensities, FTC and federal Truth in Lending regulations.