Service center burned down...with my lease in it

Yeah, go for it.

1 Like

The fiduciary duty is to their insured who paid for comprehensive coverage, not a random lessee as you asked. You seem to be unable to connect the dots while complaining about flawed or convoluted logic.

See Gibson here:


“[4b] Thus, it seems clear that any fiduciary duty existing between an insurer and its insured is governed by the terms of the insurance contract [162 Cal. App. 3d 450] in effect between them; to the extent there is no contract, i.e., because the insurer has not extended coverage for the risk by which the insured has suffered a loss, the relationship between the parties is not controlled by principles of strict fiduciary responsibility. An insured who has obtained liability coverage reasonably expects to be protected from losses covered by the policy and likewise expects the insurer to stand by its part of the bargain in affording such coverage.”

You seem to be going by keywords in your law research? That’s a novel approach. Any other average law scholar would say that a decision regarding underinsured motorist protection has nothing to do with a question of whom receives the insurance overage for leased vehicles… but your brand new and unorthodox approach of tieing them together because both cases have word ‘insurance’ in them is far more superior than our approaches of the old days.

I will cease further arguing with such enlighted person as yourself, as you are clearly well versed in both keyword search on Google and legal matters.

Ok so what? What difference do credits and debits make?

There are two irrefutable facts here that accounting doesn’t change:

Yes, the insurance company has a fiduciary duty to you (or something akin to a fiduciary duty). And the insurance company only has privity of contract with you and not the auto leasing finance arm. My GEICO insurance doesnt name Volvo finance as an insured party anywhere (this example uses a Volvo).

The problem is state insurance regulations and laws govern this issue and any contract to the contrary is void against public policy. Every state requires the insurance company to pay the lien holder directly (they don’t want you pocketing the money and not paying off the lien). In leases, the lease finance arm is going to be the only person named on the title and they are therefore going to get the whole check. There is no way around it.

The other issue to consider is I told Volvo I have comprehensive insurance on the car. This isn’t insurance to make Volvo whole on remaining payments, this is insurance against the market value of the car. If it is less than the lease pay off, Volvo’s GAP kicks in to cover the deficiency. If it is more, while that seems to be uncertain. If GEICO didn’t give Volvo the full market value of car, Volvo is likely to be able to successfully sue me for the difference. I told them I was getting them insurance on the full market value of the vehicle. Whether GEICO has to give it to them directly or not, Volvo is owed the full payout.

1 Like

Interesting, my AAA did name my lessor, somewhere but I can’t print it for some reason right now, but I definitely remember a document about Hyundai getting proceeds (primary or secondary I don’t remember)

Otherwise, if they weren’t there, whats to stop me from cashing the check and not paying them? (Other than a lawsuit and my credit rating in the toilet)

  1. I was supposed to have GEICO name Volvo as the insured but I didn’t do it cause…I didn’t feel like it.

The state insurance rules noted above. The insurance company has to pay off lien if vehicle is totaled. They cant give you the money and ask you to do it. My impression is insurance also can only pay whois on the title which would preclude them from even giving you the overage.

1 Like

Actually I have heard you can insure ANYTHING and ANYONE , and get the money. The insurance company is betting with you that nothing happens, not with whomever owns the product. But in the case of auto insurance they add that little extra protection by adding a memo/admendment that the owner gets money, I just wish I could find the exact document so I can read up on just how much they are covered (min or max) in case of total loss.

Watch TheBigShort. Those guys were betting that the housing market was going to crash and the insurer (AIG?) said it wouldn’t and took their bet in the form of premiums. The guys had NOTHING to do with the housing market crash, but make a ton of money on the bets when it did and AIG went belly up.

I think one point that is not being discussed is the amount VW asked for to release the title of the vehicle to the insurance company. Their policy could easily be to ask for market value vs customer payoff amount (similar to how some third party lease sales are handled).

For my case, Honda FS sent State Farm a letter with a payoff amount which was the same amount for my payoff minus taxes. State Farm cut HFS a check for the payoff amount and then cut me a check for the difference which included sales tax and reasonable registration costs.

But if for any reason, HFS wanted to charge State Farm market value for payoff, I probably would have gotten just the sales tax or something like that


This is true (within reasonable limits, of course).

Except for it not being true.

Ummm your link says it’s possible, it also says you better get permission of the person being insured as well as demonstrating that there’s some kind of financial injury or they won’t issue it.
(aka Within limits)

Look at Lloyd’s of London, they insure the wackiest things. (David Lee Roth’s pregnancy insurance comes to mind)

1 Like

That’s a pretty narrow limit on who you can take an insurance policy out on. How many people’s death would really cause you financial hardship? Not many. And on top of that you need their consent to takeout the policy.

I don’t think that is consistent with saying “you can insure anything and anyone.”

Edit - your David Lee Roth comment. I’d concede you can insure just about anything. Just not anyone.

1 Like

Typically when you reach a certain level of unbelievability, you self-insurance and obtain re-insurance from someone like Lloyd’s of London. (source: The Circus naturally)

This post is another circular argument where the record seems to keep skipping over:

  • a signed lease where the proceeds of any overage in a total loss go to the captive, and
  • the fact that once the car is totaled, the title can’t be transferred until it’s branded, which means the insurance claim needs to be settled

Also on my Volvo in CA: VCFS is on the policy and insurance cards


This is a specific product, namely life insurance, which have very specific properties.

If you just want a bet on the person X being alive at a certain date, you can get this insurance at Loyds, for certain. This is not to say that you will find the premium agreeable.

1 Like

It actually says that or is implied? The last one I saw implied it.

The only lease I have seen that doesn’t explicitly state one way or the other is bmw


Typical ignorance & arrogance combo expected of all Kruger-Dunning club members… who never suspect that they belong to the club! For the record, I had a number of rodeos with various insurance companies - including some very complicated matters that took years to settle for very large sums in trial or mediation - and won them all. For myself and others.

The last time I had to use the “magic words” was earlier this year when my mother-in-law’s adjuster denied the claim under false pretenses. One quick call to a manager and the status changed from denied to paid in full. Just like that.

Gibson is a case law in CA. What you missed is that it deep dives into the extent of the insurer’s fiduciary duty, not the the indisputable fact that such duty exists for the paid coverage. Which explains the part that totally went over your head: UI portion in Gibson was outside the umbrella as it was not paid by the insured. Or did you already forget your own question from a couple of hours earlier?

Bottom line, I have no clue about NJ laws but there is no reason to discourage the OP from doing their own research on this.

PS: I really have to ask how do you suppose someone runs a Google search on things they don’t know to exist???


The fact is that VW now has to recognize income (which btw would have been a loss just a year ago).
Remember the IRS’s follow the money mantra? They have a windfall resulting from a third party’s casualty which is an unjust enrichment by definition.

I guess we might as well agree to disagree on this. I am only trying to help the OP… Thanks for keeping this respectful.

EDIT: meant would be loss if returned to VW last year.