[TowerTalk] insurance and towers

[Jim Lux]

> In your case, the record should be adjusted to reflect ONE claim.
> Inquiries in which no claim was filed should not be entered into
> the CLUE database and multiple claims as a result of a single
> event (Lili) should be entered as a single event (even if the
> insurance company processes the claims separately).
>
> Much like the Credit Rating Agencies, CLUE is required to repair
> incorrect data and/or include customer responses (on request) in
> the event of "unfavorable" records.
>
>
I don't think there is an equivalent to the federal Fair Credit Reporting
Act  (which is what requires credit reporting entities to correct erroneous
records) for other similar databases (CLUE, MIB, ChexSystems, etc.). Some
states may have laws for this, though. By and large, in the U.S.,  anyone
can collect any sort of data they want and sell it or use it however they
want.  The collector of the data is the owner and is responsible for the
data's use. The EU is very different, by the way, essentially saying that
personal data is the property of the person, and that the person has to
explicitly give permission for further use, etc.  This causes big problems
for multinational corporations with data processing facilities in the US who
want to process "personally identifiable data" from EU partners/subsidiaries
(think bank and credit card accounts).  Read those annual privacy
disclosures very carefully!


  In fact, the FCRA was put in place to shield credit agencies from libel
and slander lawsuits along the lines of: If you promise to correct errors,
etc., then we'll prevent people from suing you for for distributing
incorrect derogatory information.  In theory, one can sue an organization
which runs a "CLUE" type database if they distribute incorrect information,
but you'd have to prove that it caused damage to you (very, very tough) and,
odds are, at some point, you signed or agreed to some form of contract that
waived that right to sue (probably when you bought your insurance).

It's not so much the data, as the use to which the data is put.  If the
database shows you had two instances of damage and two inquiries (albeit all
related to the same "root cause") and you actually had two instances and two
inquiries, then the database is correct.  It's the insurance company's
subsequent interpretation of the data that's the problem, and that's mostly
a matter for the state's insurance regulator as far as rates and
eligibilities go.

Jim, W6RMK