CA Fires ...

Weaselinsuit said:
Most insurers purchase insurance themselves against catastrophic claims called reinsurance. With respect to claims, they won't permit much leeway if something is excluded from coverage but if it's covered, it's covered. Typically, they either rewrite the policy wording after these kind of events or, as State Farm did, refuse to write policies in certain areas.

It's a difficult situation. People choose to live in areas that are prone to disasters; e.g., Calgary - people have built all along the two rivers that pass through the City. On flood plains. Where it's known that floods are going to happen, granted not as often/severe as in 2013 but still. Should they be entitled to insurance for a loss that is demonstrably likely to occur? If insurance isn't made available then does that mean the government is on the hook with disaster relief? Or do we say "you chose to live there, this is the consequence".
Click to expand...
Insurance is basically gambling, with a lot of statistical analysis and actuarial 'experts' setting the odds. The insurance companies have been betting for years that they would take in more money than they pay out. And when there is a huge event such as the CA fires or hurricane down south, they scurry around and invoke the fine print. Lets see, if the wind blew down the house before the storm surge washed everything away, then we pay, but if the surge wiped out the house, then there was nothing to blow away and no claim..... Never mind there were no witnesses because everyone was evacuated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom