| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 105390 | 2009-11-30 05:46:00 | Ipod, water damage, insurance | Lizard (2409) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 835004 | 2009-12-01 06:18:00 | Sweep, I'm not trying to be arguementative, but are you sure you're not confusing life insurance for General (item) insurance? General household insurance is still based on risk factors very much like car insurance as opposed to life insurance. That is what actuaries get paid to do. Assess the risk. With general household or car the company that insures you will ask do you own the car and how old are you. If you are under 25 you can expect to pay a large premium for full comprehensive if you can get it. I have full insurance on my car but I had to say that no person under 25 will drive with my permission. A person who steals the car I am covered. Is the car locked in a garage and if so possibly less premium. And etc. So to answer the question you ask I don't think I am really confused. Life insurance has other risk factors like do you take up sport like parachute or bunjy jumping and etc again. I could go on but why would I? |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 835005 | 2009-12-01 06:26:00 | General household insurance is still based on risk factors very much like car insurance as opposed to life insurance. That is what actuaries get paid to do. Assess the risk. With general household or car the company that insures you will ask do you own the car and how old are you. If you are under 25 you can expect to pay a large premium for full comprehensive if you can get it. I have full insurance on my car but I had to say that no person under 25 will drive with my permission. A person who steals the car I am covered. Is the car locked in a garage and if so possibly less premium. And etc. So to answer the question you ask I don't think I am really confused. Life insurance has other risk factors like do you take up sport like parachute or bunjy jumping and etc again. I could go on but why would I? What happens if a person under 25 steals your car and crashes? Are you still covered? I heard some story years ago about insurance being declined because the car thief was under 25. I presume it was bull **** |
plod (107) | ||
| 835006 | 2009-12-01 06:33:00 | Sorry Sweep, I wasn't aware that smoking was a factor with general insurance. Having dealt with actuaries for the last ten years on the life/investment side, I am well aware of what the risks involved are. ;) |
the_bogan (9949) | ||
| 835007 | 2009-12-01 11:20:00 | Sorry Sweep, I wasn't aware that smoking was a factor with general insurance. Having dealt with actuaries for the last ten years on the life/investment side, I am well aware of what the risks involved are. ;) Well smoking would be risk in general insurance because it could be a fire risk. Especially for those who light up a ciggie and then fall asleep and drop same. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 835008 | 2009-12-01 11:25:00 | What happens if a person under 25 steals your car and crashes? Are you still covered? I heard some story years ago about insurance being declined because the car thief was under 25. I presume it was bull **** Well the insurance may have been declined as it may have been the son or daughter who used the car without permission so it was said but then were not charged with theft or car conversion. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 835009 | 2009-12-02 06:53:00 | There's an app for that! | beeswax34 (63) | ||
| 835010 | 2009-12-02 07:25:00 | Well the insurance may have been declined as it may have been the son or daughter who used the car without permission so it was said but then were not charged with theft or car conversion. There's the answer - claim it on the car insurance and note the iPod had been drinking, and was under 25, but not a member of your family, and a non-smoker. There must be a clause for that.:mad: |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 835011 | 2009-12-02 08:17:00 | Sigh. When you pay for something read the fine print. Insurance is based on risk factors based on age, smoking or not, previous claims, medical history and etc. When you pay the premium there will be an excess or not. The more premium the less excess. What does the policy say? I read the fine print. And when I say I read the fine print, I actually mean that. Part of my job is reading fine print. In this case, though, the problem wasn't the fine print, it was contradictory information that seemed innocuous out of context, and was given without any explanation. When I spoke to company today, the explanation they gave is that because I am a renter, I attract an additional excess as part of their "standard terms". However, nothing in the policy document or the policy schedule carries any mention of this. I've accepted this for now, but my broker is now interested in why they didn't provide any information either to him or me about this. I may even take it up with the Insurance Ombudsman. To further illuminate the whole saga, they have "reviewed" my case, and have all of a sudden decided that my circumstances make me eligible for standard excess, meaning the additional excess for being a renter won't apply in future. Without wanting to sound like a conspiracy nut, it sounds like they are pushing this situation on a lot of people, and doing nothing about it until someone complains. Given that most people are intimidated by long words and contracts, this will hardly get challenged. Indeed, I consciously chose the $100 excess when I signed the policy, but never challenged them on the discrepancy between the two numbers thinking it was an oversight. It wasn't until I came to make a claim that it became an issue. I imagine for most people, in claim situations, will be more grateful to be covered, than to quibble over the excess. Long story short, the claim has been accepted, I'll have to pay the higher excess on this claim, and I should be back to Apple goodness in a few days time. |
Lizard (2409) | ||
| 835012 | 2009-12-02 08:40:00 | To further illuminate the whole saga, they have "reviewed" my case, and have all of a sudden decided that my circumstances make me eligible for standard excess, meaning the additional excess for being a renter won't apply in future. Long story short, the claim has been accepted, I'll have to pay the higher excess on this claim, and I should be back to Apple goodness in a few days time. So you do have to pay the high excess now or not? If they have reviewed your case, why wouldn't the lower excess apply in this case? :confused: You aren't with State are you? There policies and the way they are advertised have contradictions too. |
robbyp (2751) | ||
| 835013 | 2009-12-02 10:38:00 | Maybe all's well that ends swimmingly? | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||