Insurance-is it worth it?

[Rob Roy]

We've always had car insurance (of course) but house and contents insurance when we lived in the UK was not a priority as finances were often streched whilst the children were growing up. The insistance here for building insurance I don't understand as I would have thought it up to the individual to decide if they want it or are prepared to 'risk' it without. The good thing here with the insurance is that cover for our donkeys and dogs is included if they cause damage to others property [:)]

With regard to contents insurance, although we have it here I'm still not convinced it's worth it. When there was an accident with my laptop (water got spilt on the table and got into the laptop so it died - or drowned!) I rang the insurance agent to ask about making a claim and was told because it had happened in my own home I couldn't claim; if it had happened in a friend's house I could have claimed through their insurance. I thought that a bit odd.

[mint]

RR, I agree about house contents insurance and I have thought about not bothering with it.

I have some bits and pieces which are heirlooms and are not replaceable and no amount of money will compensate me for them.  So, if they get lost or damaged, it's just one of life's pitfalls.

Buildings, however, I will always have because, hell's bells, I could never afford to rebuild if my house went up in flames!

[allanb]

[quote user="Rob Roy"]When there was an accident with my laptop (water got spilt on the table and got into the laptop so it died - or drowned!) I rang the insurance agent to ask about making a claim and was told because it had happened in my own home I couldn't claim...[/quote]

So the contents of your house are insured except when they are in your house!  That's ingenious.

Seriously, is that all your agent told you? There are some odd details in insurance policies.  Maybe water damage would have been covered if caused by a burst pipe or a roof leak but not by an accidental spill.

[Chancer]

Or you could have claimed against one of your friends resposibilité civile insurance by saying he accidentally knocked the glass of water over your laptop, the insurers could spend the next zilion years paying experts and arguing aginst each other.

As much as I laugh when I read these tales and it reinforces my desire to avoid wherever possible all dealings with insurers it saddens me, I know full well that you would not have submitted a claim for your laptop if it didnt appear to be covered by your insurance.

In the storm of 87 some tiles fell off my garage roof and beat the hell out of the car roof, my insurers refused to pay as it was my car and said I it was my neighbours car they would pay, if the tiles had damaged another part of my insured property they would pay, that I should claim from my car insurance, big excess and loss of NCB [:(]

Still it was usefull info, I got one of the tiles and using it bashed at least one hole in each of the corrugated asbestos roofing sheets behind the tiled facade, holes small enough that I could repair with fibre glass.

I got a quote from a builder, not inflated or anything but one that would comfortably cover the damage to my car roof, told the insurers that I had found further storm damage the next time it rained and all was well.

[audio]

That was a bit naughty Chancer-Love it

[Chancer]

Having seen the aftermath of burglaries and the way the insurers behaved in the UK (France seems worse) I have learnt that attack is the best form of defense, I used to deplore people that fabricated or inflated claims, now I see it as playing the game, they will send out a loss adjustor whose job it is to reduce your claim so I understand why some people inflate it by a corresponding amount first.

House been burgled but no sign of forced entry? Make sure there is one before reporting it.

Car stolen from your drive? Look to see if your spare keys have not previously been lifted (modern cars are practically impossible to steal without the keys) make sure you have another "spare" set for when the assessor comes, etc etc.

Wife drives into your garage door, say it was some bloke called Chancer and give your insurers his French address, If you are reading this ****** I would prefer you to tell me in advance the next time you pull that stunt!!!!

[audio]

Describing insurance, all I can think of are four letter words.

Just heard about a friend who works in a large UK hospital. She was walking down interior stairs in order to sign in at the start of her shift, a power cut plunged the area in total darkness. She fell and was badly injured. Hospital insurance won’t pay because she hadn’t signed in at the time of the accident and therefore was not working for them when injured.

As for burglars, I love the US laws on this, in some States you can quite legally shoot them if they are inside your house, if after being shot, they stagger outside, drag them back in for a watertight story.

[allanb]

[quote user="Chancer"]In the storm of 87 some tiles fell off my garage roof and beat the hell out of the car roof, my insurers refused to pay as it was my car and said I it was my neighbours car they would pay, if the tiles had damaged another part of my insured property they would pay, that I should claim from my car insurance...[/quote]

If you look at the list of things that are insured under your household policy, I bet you will find something like this:

Ne sont pas assurés:

- les véhicules à moteur soumis à l'assurance automobile obligatoire...

I may be wrong, of course, but this is very common.  If it is the case, why on earth should your household insurer pay for the damage to your car?

I don't agree with the widespread idea that an insurer should pay for anything that happens, whether it's covered or not.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="audio"] if after being shot, they stagger outside, drag them back in for a watertight story.[/quote] Isn't that illegal, tampering with the evidence, perverting the course of justice or somesuch[:)]

[Chancer]

[quote user="allanb"][quote user="Chancer"][/quote]

If you look at the list of things that are insured under your household policy, I bet you will find something like this:

Ne sont pas assurés:
- les véhicules à moteur soumis à l'assurance automobile obligatoire...

I may be wrong, of course, but this is very common.  If it is the case, why on earth should your household insurer pay for the damage to your car?

I don't agree with the widespread idea that an insurer should pay for anything that happens, whether it's covered or not.
[/quote]

Wrong country AllanB, I thought the tempête of 87 gave France the swerve like the radioctive dust cloud from Chernobyl.

There was not, and I believe its still the case, a requirement to insure a vehicle on private land as mine was, They couldnt really justify their decision, it was something like we wont extend cover to something already insured, for my part I didnt want to lose my NCB, if the tiles had fallen on my push bike, a patio table or my neighbours head or car they would have paid out, yet his car would have equaly carried its own insurance.

I didnt waste my energy arguing, I just got the money out of them another way.

Your last sentence confuses me, I agree with the first part, but whether its covered or not? - Sounds a bit French!!!!

[allanb]

OK, if it wasn't a French policy, you won't find those words.  But the question remains: did your policy (the one you're complaining about) include damage to your car(s)?

My last sentence only repeats the same point.  Was your car included in the things covered by the policy?  If not, why should the insurer pay?

[Chancer]

Allan.

The question that remains will will have to continue to remain.

I cant remember what I did yesterday or even where I put down my pencil/tapemeasure/car keys 30 seconds ago.

Do you really expect me to recall the terms and conditions of an insurance policy some 15 years ago? [:D]

[idun]

I cant remember what I did yesterday or even where I put down my pencil/tapemeasure/car keys 30 seconds ago.

 

ROFL, glad I'm not the only one who has these moments.[8-)]

[Rabbie]

[quote user="allanb"]OK, if it wasn't a French policy, you won't find those words.  But the question remains: did your policy (the one you're complaining about) include damage to your car(s)?

My last sentence only repeats the same point.  Was your car included in the things covered by the policy?  If not, why should the insurer pay?
[/quote]Surely the policy should cover damage caused by tiles being blown off the roof? I know I was covered when my new car had a tile land on the bonnet many years ago. My house insurance paid out both for the car repairs and for the roof repairs.

Pedants Corner. Chancer the hurricane of 87 was actually 23.5 years ago so you will need to stretch your memory even further to recall your policy details[:D].

[allanb]

I simply asked whether the car was covered by the policy.  If not, it doesn't make any difference what caused the damage. 

If Chancer can't remember, what was the point of the story?  We'll never know whether the insurance company was right or wrong.

[PaulT]

[quote user="audio"] Just heard about a friend who works in a large UK hospital. She was walking down interior stairs in order to sign in at the start of her shift, a power cut plunged the area in total darkness. She fell and was badly injured. Hospital insurance won’t pay because she hadn’t signed in at the time of the accident and therefore was not working for them when injured. [/quote]

Something odd there. If the trust has said that then they are chancing not paying on a claim - does not matter if she has not signed on she is still on the premises and trusts have a duty of care to staff, patients and visitors. The trust I work for receives a number of claims from patients and visitors as well as staff

Paul

[Rabbie]

[quote user="allanb"]I simply asked whether the car was covered by the policy.  If not, it doesn't make any difference what caused the damage. 

If Chancer can't remember, what was the point of the story?  We'll never know whether the insurance company was right or wrong.
[/quote]AllanB, IMO it would only have been relevant if the car was explicitly excluded from the policy. Would you really expect the policy to list that all cars belonging to neighbours and visitors were explicitly included yet they would be covered if they were damage by tiles blowing off  the roof. Still as you say not much point in continuing this discussion if Chancer can't remember the details of an old policy.

In regards to insurance in general, we find that the speed of payouts from my wife's clients' insurers varies a lot from company to company. The general tendency is that the cheaper the company the longer they take to pay up when the claim is made. Like many things in life it seems you get what you pay for

[Chancer]

AllanB, when someone of your undoubted intelligence trys to play the dummy its very difficult to do.

Playing along with you though, the policy was a household buildings and contents insurance, the house and outbuildings were the insured items (covered), the policy included loss or damage to property of the insured or 3rd parties occasioned by the risks specified in the policy.

My car insurance, which despite not being a legal requirement also covered such eventualities as falling tiles, I did not want to use them as not only would I have an excess to pay I would either lose my NCB or they would claim against my buildings insurance resulting in a premium hike.

I was a very young man at the time and just starting out as a householder, looking back my instincts served me well and I learned from the episode, 25 or so years on (I realised this morning that my maths is failing like my memory) if the same thing were to happen I would just say "oh bother" and fix the car, actually I now drive a shed so it would be left dented.

At least now I get what I pay for with insurance, I pay zero and get zero grief in return [:D]

[allanb]

[quote user="Rabbie"]IMO it would only have been relevant if the car was explicitly excluded from the policy. Would you really expect the policy to list that all cars belonging to neighbours and visitors were explicitly included yet they would be covered if they were damage by tiles blowing off the roof.[/quote]The clause I quoted excludes cars from coverage of damage to the policyholder's own property.  Anything, including a car, belonging to somebody else (neighbours, visitors, etc) would be covered under the policyholder's third-party liability insurance. 

Chancer: I don't think anyone's playing the dummy here (although I liked the bit about intelligence).  All I did was point out that household insurance policies commonly exclude cars, but I should have made it clear that I wasn't talking about third-party liability.

If there had been such an exclusion in your policy, the agent would have been right, wouldn't he?  Maybe you're sure that there wasn't such an exclusion, but you certainly gave the impression that you couldn't remember.

Anyway, this discussion may have achieved something if it reminds people that the exclusions may be as important as the coverage.

[Chancer]

I am not so sure now that I was actually so sure that there wasnt an exclusion, I also cannot recall giving the impression that I couldnt remember [;-)]

Confusion has always been my best defensive tool!

[audio]

[quote user="PaulT"]

[quote user="audio"] Just heard about a friend who works in a large UK hospital. She was walking down interior stairs in order to sign in at the start of her shift, a power cut plunged the area in total darkness. She fell and was badly injured. Hospital insurance won’t pay because she hadn’t signed in at the time of the accident and therefore was not working for them when injured. [/quote]

Something odd there. If the trust has said that then they are chancing not paying on a claim - does not matter if she has not signed on she is still on the premises and trusts have a duty of care to staff, patients and visitors. The trust I work for receives a number of claims from patients and visitors as well as staff

Paul

[/quote]

It is not ‘IF the trust said that’, they did say that.

You say the trust you work for receives a number of claims, but how many are successful?

 

[fisherman]

As Paul said they do have a duty of care.

If the stairway was an approved access route and was plunged into in total darkness it is probably a breach of the health and safety at work act. This is a risk which should have been picked up on their risk assessment. What if there had been a fire?

Bureaucratic administrators for these big organisations make me sick. Little people with too much power.

If your friend is in a union then they should fight her case. If not go to the citizens advice bureau in the first instance they should advise on a solicitor.

Avoid those ambulance chasing solicitors (sleaze bags) they are only interested in making their fee.

[audio]

[quote user="fisherman"]As Paul said they do have a duty of care. If the stairway was an approved access route and was plunged into in total darkness it is probably a breach of the health and safety at work act. This is a risk which should have been picked up on their risk assessment. What if there had been a fire? Bureaucratic administrators for these big organisations make me sick. Little people with too much power. If your friend is in a union then they should fight her case. If not go to the citizens advice bureau in the first instance they should advise on a solicitor. Avoid those ambulance chasing solicitors (sleaze bags) they are only interested in making their fee.[/quote]

 

Thank you Fisherman.

Yes she is in a union and they are fighting her case but this should not be necessary.

 'Duty of care' Have to wait and see.

[PaulT]

[quote user="audio"][quote user="PaulT"]

[quote user="audio"] Just heard about a friend who works in a large UK hospital. She was walking down interior stairs in order to sign in at the start of her shift, a power cut plunged the area in total darkness. She fell and was badly injured. Hospital insurance won’t pay because she hadn’t signed in at the time of the accident and therefore was not working for them when injured. [/quote]

Something odd there. If the trust has said that then they are chancing not paying on a claim - does not matter if she has not signed on she is still on the premises and trusts have a duty of care to staff, patients and visitors. The trust I work for receives a number of claims from patients and visitors as well as staff

Paul

[/quote]

It is not ‘IF the trust said that’, they did say that.

You say the trust you work for receives a number of claims, but how many are successful?

 

[/quote]

Quite a number. It can sometimes be a case that it is cheaper to pay up than fight. However, there are some people who try it on and these will be fought. Trips and falls are normally the most common claim.

Was the stair case a fire exit. If so then it most definitely should have had emergency lighting - battery powered lighting that comes on when power fails - ask them how it conforms to FIRECODE without it.

Ask to see the risk assessment that shows that emergency lighting is not required on the staircase.

Paul

[allanb]

[quote user="Chancer"]I am not so sure now that I was actually so sure that there wasnt an exclusion, I also cannot recall giving the impression that I couldnt remember.[/quote]

It must be terrible to have memory problems.  I can't remember the last time I forgot something.