Insurance Coverage When Driving on a Lake

[sns2]

Well, with all the talk about dropping through the ice with your truck, and Slave Lake being where I normally fish, I again called my insurance company and demanded an email stating my coverage in such a situation. I had asked for it twice in the past couple of weeks, and I guess the person on the phone didn't care to follow through. Anyhow, today they said if truck goes through ice they would need to do an investigation to determine if negligence played a part, the same as any other claim that is made; though she wouldn't really quantify what would qualify as negligence. Anyhow, below is the response I got in my inbox... Feel free to comment on if your policy is similar and/or if you'd feel comfortable with this coverage, as well as what other reasons insurers would look for to deny such a claim were it to happen, as we all know that is exactly what they are looking to do.


Good Afternoon,

As per our phone conversation earlier this afternoon to your inquiry about whether you would have coverage if your vehicle went through the ice while you were fishing
The process would be the same as putting in any claim: Claim is reported, *full detailed statement on how the loss occurred, * claims adjuster will *investigate the loss to determine if coverage in place. Once the adjuster confirms coverage the claim would proceed,*

To answer your question, if the claim is accepted, yes *Intact would cover the *cost to recover the vehicle, *This type of loss is considered to be a At Fault Collision claim .



Xxxxxxxccxc
Unit Claims Manager*
Customer Service Centre - *Calgary
Intact *Insurance

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[wbaj]

So they would pay for the recovery from the lake but not the repair/damages to the truck?
Still seems like a grey area for me, going to call my insurance co tomorrow

[stubblejumper01]

I would think that in the case of ice fishing they would try very hard to deny a claim,as they do in any situation really.
But as for ice fishing at Slave, with a few vehicles going through recently they may try to claim you are negligent as the risk is high at this time due to ice conditions. I think it's a roll of the dice. Can you convince an adjuster that your claim is valid under the known conditions and recent history of vehicles going through?
Personally I am going to use the quad or side by side or snowmobile as I feel there is less chance, but still a chance of going through. Plus if I don't use them enough the wife will start to think I don't need them anymore!!

[sns2]

Originally Posted by wbaj

So they would pay for the recovery from the lake but not the repair/damages to the truck?
Still seems like a grey area for me, going to call my insurance co tomorrow

She said if there is no negligence involved then the vehicle would be replaced no different than a written off vehicle where you were at fault.

[MathewsArcher]

I had no issues with my claim through RBC several years ago when I lost a truck in Crawling Valley. Vehicle and recovery were covered without question, payment was made with 3 days and rates increased less than expected as record was clean at the time.

[Ebrand]

Great rates.

Really suck when you have a claim.

Good luck with them.

[Mr Hawken]

Or you know just don't drive on the ice. I just can't see a insurance company today with all the recent insurance claims covering a vehicle that falls through the ice or the clean up of the lake. Imagine the clean up cost if more people were falling thru. I guess I look at it as something I can avoid so why bother seeing what might happen just don't drive on the ice.

[mustard73]

I guess it is a good time to call and double check but when I have called in the past, they have explained it would be handled as a comprehensive claim for water damage. Since it is comprehensive, there should not be any increase to premiums.

[Bitumen Bullet]

Originally Posted by sns2

....The process would be the same as putting in any claim: Claim is reported, *full detailed statement on how the loss occurred, * claims adjuster will *investigate the loss to determine if coverage in place. Once the adjuster confirms coverage the claim would proceed,......

That is a very non-answer.

I've spent some time driving on ice and winter roads and insurance can be an issue, and it sounds like it is in this case.

A better answer would have pointed out the requirements for driving on the ice. With winter roads it can be only provincial winter roads and only when open for your class of vehicle, or private roads with specified ice thickness, fishing with proper licenses and ice measurements and the limits to recovery and environmental costs.

I'd ask more questions before I'd feel sure they would come through if needed and expect to pay more for the extended coverage if available.

[sns2]

That's how I felt too, but she was very non-commital when I pushed her on what factors would lead to them denying a claim.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

[mustard73]

I emailed my insurance company today. First is my question and below is their response. This is from The Personal Insurance.

I wanted to email and request more information with regards to driving on
frozen ice surfaces (lakes, ponds, etc) in the winter time. If a vehicle
was to break through the ice, how would I be covered by my current
insurance policy? Would it cover the costs associated with vehicle
retrieval and repair? Would this be covered by comprehensive insurance?

Response:

Thank you for your recent e-mail. As per your inquiry, I can confirm that
you would indeed be covered under the Comprehensive portion of your policy
if one of your vehicles were to fall through frozen ice, subject to your
deductible. In regards to retrieval and repair as opposed to simply writing
a vehicle off as a total loss, this would be determined on a case by case
basis, as it is not always be possible to retrieve a vehicle in enough time
to be able to repair it due to certain weather conditions, depth of water,
etc. We do recommend taking the proper precautions before attempting to use
a vehicle on any frozen surface in order to prevent any claims, and more
importantly, sustaining any injuries.

[RavYak]

Every insurance company is pretty much the same, case by case investigation and that is why no one ever gets the same answer because there is no blanket rule as to whether or not you will be covered.

You shouldn't be covered if you drive on a lake that is known to not be safe and has signs etc. You shouldn't be covered if you drive on early season when the ice is too thin or in the spring when the ice has softened. You shouldn't be covered if you try driving over a nasty ice heave. In short insurance companies should not be covering stupidity.

[EZM]

My insurance company will cover my loss, entirely, including recovery, with only a couple stipulations ....

I must enter and exit the ice from a "common access point" "such a boat launch" where there is "reasonable expectation" that signs would be posted to indicate "an unsafe ice condition". If no such signs are posted ....... I am covered ............ period ......... no other clever language or grey areas for me.

My agent, who we have known and been friends with for years told me, the first thing they (the adjusters) do is take pictures of where you went onto the ice. (the access point from dry land to the lake. If there are no warning signs, the access point is accessed via a common point, you are covered.

Having said that .....

There is, of course, a stipulation under law that exists to protect the insurer from "clear and wilful negligence" which, would be something like purposely sinking your truck .... setting your house on fire, etc.... something like that.

[Duramaximos]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Every insurance company is pretty much the same, case by case investigation and that is why no one ever gets the same answer because there is no blanket rule as to whether or not you will be covered.

You shouldn't be covered if you drive on a lake that is known to not be safe and has signs etc. You shouldn't be covered if you drive on early season when the ice is too thin or in the spring when the ice has softened. You shouldn't be covered if you try driving over a nasty ice heave. In short insurance companies should not be covering stupidity.

Most at fault collision accidents are caused by stupidity and they cover those.

My feeling is if you exercise reasonable caution to ensure the ice is safe you should be covered. To me that means checking ice thickness against a reputable ice load reference, in a couple spots. Once near the edge and once in the middle. I do this regardless because i don't like to die.

It's up to you to prove your loss, and if you demonstrate that you checked the thickness you shouldn't have any trouble.

Just my $0.02.