It’s about time that someone recognizes the fact that we (the insurance carriers) are under no legal (contractual) obligation to include the PA on any loss payment. PA’s have historically argued that if the policyholder executes a “Direction to Pay”, that this holds the same degree of requirment as that of a medical assignment. The property & casualty insurance contract is between the company and the ‘named insured’, and no other obligation attaches other than that which is spelled out in the policy. The contractural agreement between the policyholder and the PA cannot obligate a third party who is not a signator to that contract, any more than obligating someone as a co-signator to a purchase agreement on real or personal property, when they did not agree to the terms of that contract.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It’s about time that someone recognizes the fact that we (the insurance carriers) are under no legal (contractual) obligation to include the PA on any loss payment. PA’s have historically argued that if the policyholder executes a “Direction to Pay”, that this holds the same degree of requirment as that of a medical assignment. The property & casualty insurance contract is between the company and the ‘named insured’, and no other obligation attaches other than that which is spelled out in the policy. The contractural agreement between the policyholder and the PA cannot obligate a third party who is not a signator to that contract, any more than obligating someone as a co-signator to a purchase agreement on real or personal property, when they did not agree to the terms of that contract.
Nice try William, but convenience is no substitue for common law compliance.