Jump to content

General Chat


AVFCLaura

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

How does the insurance work with this? If these houses repeatedly get fires how do they get insured?

Good question. Not certain but I think, as with areas with regular hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, at first they reinsure at very high rates. Then if it continues they won’t insure at all. Big issues all over the country with insurance companies cutting off coverage in places with perennial issues. Long story short: it’s a mess. We’ve yet to have any issues at all regarding insurance but I bet many people living with 10-15 miles of me have 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

How does the insurance work with this? If these houses repeatedly get fires how do they get insured?

It gets harder to get coverage and more expensive.  Where historically devastating fires with loss of structures were an occasional, if not rare, thing it's now pretty certain that insurance companies are going to be making big payouts somewhere in the state every year.  Proximity to wooded areas and grasslands will figure in to rates and ease of getting coverage, as will other things such as type of construction.  I live nowhere near anything that would be considered a fire risk zone, but a neighbor around the corner had their insurance company drop their coverage because they have a shake roof.  Some companies are moving out of the market completely.  California has an insurance commissioner who effectively has to approve rate increases by companies.  They're now all claiming, probably with a fair amount of justification, that they can't afford to operate in the state without significant increases.  They're starting to play hardball by pulling out completely or finding reasons to drop customers like our neighbors.  I just learned the other day that there is something like an insurance pool that will guarantee that everyone can get some level of coverage even if no company will underwrite them, but it would be extremely expensive (e.g., tens of thousands of dollars annually).   It's necessary, though, because if people couldn't get coverage for their homes nobody would be able to buy or sell a home in the state and the market would collapse.

Edited by il_serpente
sp
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, il_serpente said:

It gets harder to get coverage and more expensive.  Where historically devastating fires with loss of structures were an occasional, if not rare, thing it's now pretty certain that insurance companies are going to be making big payouts somewhere in the state every year.  Proximity to wooded areas and grasslands will figure in to rates and ease of getting coverage, as will other things such as type of construction.  I live nowhere near anything that would be considered a fire risk zone, but a neighbor around the corner had their insurance company drop their coverage because they have a shake roof.  Some companies are moving out of the market completely.  California has an insurance commissioner who effectively has to improve rate increases by companies.  They're now all claiming, probably with a fair amount of justification, that they can't afford to operate in the state without significant increases.  They're starting to play hardball by pulling out completely or finding reasons to drop customers like our neighbors.  I just learned the other day that there is something like an insurance pool that will guarantee that everyone can get some level of coverage even if no company will underwrite them, but it would be extremely expensive (e.g., tens of thousands of dollars annually).   It's necessary, though, because if people couldn't get coverage for their homes nobody would be able to buy or sell a home in the state and the market would collapse.

I recently read an article, probably in NYT or WaPo, about places in Oklahoma & Arkansas where virtually no insurance companies will do business. Gist was that blue states have better insurance regulations and therefore those states are not getting as screwed by insurance companies as are red states, with little or no regulation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Nor-Cal Villan said:

I recently read an article, probably in NYT or WaPo, about places in Oklahoma & Arkansas where virtually no insurance companies will do business. Gist was that blue states have better insurance regulations and therefore those states are not getting as screwed by insurance companies as are red states, with little or no regulation

Quelle surprise!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nor-Cal Villan said:

Good question. Not certain but I think, as with areas with regular hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, at first they reinsure at very high rates. Then if it continues they won’t insure at all. Big issues all over the country with insurance companies cutting off coverage in places with perennial issues. Long story short: it’s a mess. We’ve yet to have any issues at all regarding insurance but I bet many people living with 10-15 miles of me have 

I wonder if anyone has suggested that the insurance brokers operating in these areas could fund the fire service.

Or would that be too "socialist"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, limpid said:

I wonder if anyone has suggested that the insurance brokers operating in these areas could fund the fire service.

Or would that be too "socialist"?

Whoa. Why should brokers pay?

They're not rating or providing cover!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Whoa. Why should brokers pay?

They're not rating or providing cover!

Wrong word from me :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, limpid said:

I wonder if anyone has suggested that the insurance brokers operating in these areas could fund the fire service.

Or would that be too "socialist"?

The fire services are already massively funded by the state. I don’t think anyone is suggesting or has ever suggested that Cal Fire is underfunded

If anything should be funded it should be a movement to reduce the number of homes built in fire-vulnerable areas 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sidcow said:

Whoa. 

You crack me when you get all Whoa…… you’ve done it in a number of posts and it makes me laugh when I read it for some strange reason 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, il_serpente said:

It gets harder to get coverage and more expensive.  Where historically devastating fires with loss of structures were an occasional, if not rare, thing it's now pretty certain that insurance companies are going to be making big payouts somewhere in the state every year.  Proximity to wooded areas and grasslands will figure in to rates and ease of getting coverage, as will other things such as type of construction.  I live nowhere near anything that would be considered a fire risk zone, but a neighbor around the corner had their insurance company drop their coverage because they have a shake roof.  Some companies are moving out of the market completely.  California has an insurance commissioner who effectively has to approve rate increases by companies.  They're now all claiming, probably with a fair amount of justification, that they can't afford to operate in the state without significant increases.  They're starting to play hardball by pulling out completely or finding reasons to drop customers like our neighbors.  I just learned the other day that there is something like an insurance pool that will guarantee that everyone can get some level of coverage even if no company will underwrite them, but it would be extremely expensive (e.g., tens of thousands of dollars annually).   It's necessary, though, because if people couldn't get coverage for their homes nobody would be able to buy or sell a home in the state and the market would collapse.

Sounds really tough.  We are quite lucky in the uk we dont have this issue right now

We mainly only get flooding and a occasional storm

Edited by Demitri_C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say a Indian mango is the hardest **** thing to peel. Its my favourite fruit but I always get a squirt attack and make a mess eveeywhere .

Its such a pain the arse to peel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

You crack me when you get all Whoa…… you’ve done it in a number of posts and it makes me laugh when I read it for some strange reason 🙂

Whoa. Settle down Champ. 

Edited by sidcow
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sheepyvillian said:

Anjem Choudray given a life sentence with a 28yr tariff. Apparently, he was "rocked on his feet." I bet he was.

That clearing in the woods still talking bollocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â