Homeowners "Insurance"?

[WaterBomb]

http://news.yahoo.com/insurers-rethink-coverage-weather-disaster-payouts-124608977.html

This article, and the comments, sparked my interest. As a newlywed who will be home shopping not too long from now, it kind of opens your eyes to the whole process and how careful you really need to be.

What is y'all's take on the way this is headed?

 

[Justin8649]

I don't really see the problem here. If you live in an area that is more prone to fuck up your home, then you should expect to pay more for insurance. It's a pretty simple business model. The insurance companies should also have the right to deny coverage to anybody they want. If I had my own insurance company, I wouldn't be too interested in covering people that buy a house below sea level while only a few miles away from the ocean (Hello retards in New Orleans!)

By the same token, my auto insurance rate is higher in the state of Maryland compared to other states simply because I am surrounded by morons that don't know how to drive. I'm completely fine with this as well. I chose to live here, so it is a consequence I will deal with.

 

[mattj]

When Heather and I started house shopping we found a nice little house downtown here in Pacific Missouri. The thing I loved most about it was that it was within walking distance of the Meramec River, and I love to fish.

Yeah

Then we heard how much the homeowner's insurance would be. Turns out the Meramec floods almost every year, often reaching the houses in that area. It was in what FEMA designated a flood plain. We would have had to pay more in HOI than in mortgage payments.

We decided to buy a small house on the North side of town where this wasn't an issue.

 

[cookie]

man, a home shop must be a really fucking huge building

 

[Umbreon Dan]

insurance (of any kind) is a deeply twisted industry. they will try to charge as much as they can. they will deny any customers who they think will actually need it. they will try anything to avoid paying out if you ever happen to need it. and if they do pay, they'll try anything to take the money back.

making money in insurance revolves around fucking as many people as possible, as hard as possible. the idea of a benevolent insurance firm that "just wants to protect people" is laughable, since those firms would by destroyed by their competition.

that's why insurance needs to be removed from the private sector and handled by the government, which actually can (and does) attempt to serve the public.

 

[capefeather]

Is this going to turn into another argument between whether we protect ourselves from the government or the government protects us from ourselves?

 

[Alan]

Insurance companies don't have to sell you insurance. They aren't required to make an investment on your home. If it's not a good investment, why would they take that risk? Insurance is all about risk versus reward. They are gambling that the amount they promise to pay you for damages will outweigh the likelihood that you will incur said damages.

 

[WaterBomb]

Insurance companies don't have to sell you insurance. They aren't required to make an investment on your home. If it's not a good investment, why would they take that risk? Insurance is all about risk versus reward. They are gambling that the amount they promise to pay you for damages will outweigh the likelihood that you will incur said damages.

I think the argument many people have is not against insurance companies for refusing to sell insurance based on risk, but rather with companies who will sell insurance to people and then drop them or try to get out of it when a claim comes up. It's just as much a "risk vs reward" proposition on the side of the company as it is on the consumer, and you can't always get the reward end. If you offer a product and a person decides to "risk" the investment, you need to pay up when you promised you would.

I have no problem with companies charging higher premiums to people of higher risk, or refusing coverage for high risk areas altogether. That side of it makes sense to me. What I disagree with is the way the companies will fight against legitimate claims and try to circumvent policies so they don't have to pay. If you're not willing to take the risk, don't enter the contract. It's just unfortunate that a business like this is a breeding ground for deceit, because the whole premise is to help people.

 

[mattj]

I can definitely agree with that. My buddy Scott just bought his house a few months ago. His insurance threatened to drop him a month after all the papers were signed and they had settled in. They said his house needed several thousand dollars worth of repairs. He got such a great deal on the house that it would have been easy for him to roll the extra money into his mortgage, but everything had already been finalized a month before. It was really rough for him to come up with the money because he had just spent his savings on the downpayment. He didn't have a choice though because his bank demanded that he maintain insurance, or they could have forclosed on him. He got everything squared away but its just another example of an insurance company agreeing to a contract, arbitrarily deciding to modify that contract, and causing headache for a homeowner who has very little choice but to comply.

 

[gerihilton]

Re: Homeownres Insurance

Wow, it’s so sad that the people who need insurance most are the most denied. The home auto insurance from AARP doesn’t seem as harsh.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

BEST SPAMBOT A+

 

[tennisace]

i'm leaving it, nobody touch it