<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/12/2012 11:43 AM, Tom Hansen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8ADF761C-D5C5-43F2-A7BB-0EA6555661CC@moscow.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>Yes. It would be wonderful if health insurance coverage was
as guaranteed as unto mobile insurance and health insurance
covered the costs regardless of when the condition came into
existence.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There is a big difference, we are now collectively saying as a
matter of national health policy, between pre-existing conditions in
human beings and pre-existing conditions in inanimate objects, such
as an automobile, as far as insurance coverage is concerned.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8ADF761C-D5C5-43F2-A7BB-0EA6555661CC@moscow.com"
type="cite">
<div>To put it simply, has any automobile insurance company
refused coverage to any of their clients because their vehicle
was taken to a repair shop for a "prior existing condition"?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm sure the answer must be yes. It is possible to insure a car that
has physical damage when it is insured. However, that damage must be
disclosed to the insurance company before the comprehensive policy
is issued. Failure to disclose, and then subsequently claiming
repair of the prior damage as part of a claim for even more damage
later, is considered insurance fraud. Not only is that illegal, it
is also cause for an insurer to refuse coverage. I suspect that it
is enough of a national problem that some degree of additional rate
collecting against it is built into some insurers' rates, especially
for higher-risk policies.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
</body>
</html>