Called up a broker to insure my dirt bike for trails. I was asked if there were any other licensed riders in the house; "no". The conversation continues and the subject of my wife comes up and I'm asked if she's licensed to which I answer that yes she drives a car, but not any bikes. The broker states that she had already asked me about licensed drivers and I had said no (maybe she did say drivers but I was thinking bikes so...).
Anyway, now she wants my wife's info, and I start questioning her as to why. She goes on about how "she could ride it" and that it's the underwriter's policy to get the info on all licensed drivers in the household. My wife doesn't ride, at all. She hasn't even been on the back of my street bikes since she got pregnant with our 7 year old son. I pointed out that if my son was 14 or so that he could also possibly ride it (and be more likely to), but in that he's not licensed, his info wouldn't be required... she stammered over a response to that.
I'm citing the privacy issue but also know that the bigger issue is the ability for them to jack her rates if I get done with something, and my rates vice-versa.
She checked with their underwriter who confirmed that they won't insure me without her info. I'm calling other companies but already know from previous research that this is likely to be the best deal... so I'll have to swallow my principle argument and hand over my money along with my wife's info (who, FTR, has a clean history).
Legalized robbery.
[/rant]
Anyway, now she wants my wife's info, and I start questioning her as to why. She goes on about how "she could ride it" and that it's the underwriter's policy to get the info on all licensed drivers in the household. My wife doesn't ride, at all. She hasn't even been on the back of my street bikes since she got pregnant with our 7 year old son. I pointed out that if my son was 14 or so that he could also possibly ride it (and be more likely to), but in that he's not licensed, his info wouldn't be required... she stammered over a response to that.
I'm citing the privacy issue but also know that the bigger issue is the ability for them to jack her rates if I get done with something, and my rates vice-versa.
She checked with their underwriter who confirmed that they won't insure me without her info. I'm calling other companies but already know from previous research that this is likely to be the best deal... so I'll have to swallow my principle argument and hand over my money along with my wife's info (who, FTR, has a clean history).
Legalized robbery.
[/rant]
Last edited:
