Totally agree—getting it in writing is key. Ever notice how vague some of those policy exclusions can be, though? Like, they'll say something about "reasonable wear and tear," but who decides what's reasonable? Had a friend whose claim got denied because the insurer argued the damage was "expected deterioration." Makes me wonder, how often do insurers rely on these fuzzy definitions to dodge payouts... Seems like clarity isn't exactly their priority.
Yeah, you're spot on about the vague wording. I've seen insurers lean heavily on terms like "gradual damage" or "lack of maintenance," too. The tricky part is, these definitions aren't standardized across companies—each insurer interprets them differently. One thing I always suggest is asking for specific examples upfront when you get your policy. It might feel tedious, but having them clarify exactly what they consider "reasonable" or "expected" can save headaches later... at least in theory.
"It might feel tedious, but having them clarify exactly what they consider 'reasonable' or 'expected' can save headaches later... at least in theory."
Haha, "in theory" is right. Reminds me of when my old sedan had a mysterious leak—nothing dramatic, just a slow drip. Thought I was covered, but nope... insurer called it "gradual damage." Apparently, I was supposed to psychically sense the leak and fix it before it became noticeable. Lesson learned: always ask insurers to define their psychic expectations upfront.
Honestly, though, insurers aren't always being sneaky. Most policies are pretty clear about excluding gradual wear and tear. Frustrating? Definitely...but it's usually right there in the fine print nobody reads until it's too late.
Yeah, learned that lesson the hard way myself. Had a transmission issue a while back—thought insurance would cover it, but nope... wear and tear exclusion. Frustrating, but now I always double-check the fine print. You're definitely not alone on this one.
