| Author |
Message |
lixiangdong
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:21 am
Post subject: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not file |
|
|
"Lightning damaged the home, but the total cost of repairs
was less than the deductible, so the homeowner did not file
a claim."
Does anybody know this? would you like give me a easier explanation for it?
Thanks in advance.
Li.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:36 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
lixiangdong wrote:
| Quote: | "Lightning damaged the home, but the total cost of repairs
was less than the deductible, so the homeowner did not file
a claim."
Does anybody know this? would you like give me a easier explanation
for it?
Thanks in advance.
|
Homes are usually insured for damage by fire or other hazards. The premiums
paid for such insurance are lower when the homeowner will pay some amount
towards the repairs required when damage occurs. That amount is called a
deductible, and quite often it is set at $500. If the repairs cost less
than $500, there is no point in filing a claim with the insurance company.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dylan Nicholson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:41 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
"Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2v008hF2f7irmU1@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: |
Homes are usually insured for damage by fire or other hazards. The premiums
paid for such insurance are lower when the homeowner will pay some amount
towards the repairs required when damage occurs. That amount is called a
deductible, and quite often it is set at $500. If the repairs cost less
than $500, there is no point in filing a claim with the insurance company.
|
Called an 'excess' in this part of the world - and I'm not sure *all* policies
would have the flexibility of exchanging a higher excess for a lower
premium. Any other terms in use?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Donna Richoux
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:48 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
lixiangdong <li-xd@ice.uec.ac.jp> wrote:
| Quote: | "Lightning damaged the home, but the total cost of repairs
was less than the deductible, so the homeowner did not file
a claim."
Does anybody know this? would you like give me a easier explanation for it?
If an insurance policy has a "deductible" of, say, $100, this means the |
insurance company will pay for damages, but not the first $100. "Deduct"
means to subtract.
So if the total repair bill is $900, the homeowner pays $100 and the
insurance co. pays $800.
If the total is $150, the homeowner pays $100 and the insurance co. pays
$50.
If the total is $75, the homeowner pays $75 and the insurance company
pays nothing. There is no point in the homeowner filing a claim. That's
the situation you gave us.
Your insurance policies probably have something like this. In the
Netherlands, this amount is called the "risico" which means "risk."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:27 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2004 16:21:57 -0800, li-xd@ice.uec.ac.jp (lixiangdong) wrote:
| Quote: | "Lightning damaged the home, but the total cost of repairs
was less than the deductible, so the homeowner did not file
a claim."
Does anybody know this? would you like give me a easier explanation for it?
|
I assume that "deductible" means what we call "excess".
It means that the home owner is responsible for a certain propotion of the
claim, say the first 1000 (dollars, zlotys, leka, etc) of each claim.
So if the claim is less than 1000 it is not worth claiming.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:24 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
In article <2v008hF2f7irmU1@uni-berlin.de>, Skitt at skitt99
@comcast.net poured forth...
| Quote: |
lixiangdong wrote:
"Lightning damaged the home, but the total cost of repairs
was less than the deductible, so the homeowner did not file
a claim."
Does anybody know this? would you like give me a easier explanation
for it?
Thanks in advance.
Homes are usually insured for damage by fire or other hazards. The premiums
paid for such insurance are lower when the homeowner will pay some amount
towards the repairs required when damage occurs. That amount is called a
deductible, and quite often it is set at $500. If the repairs cost less
than $500, there is no point in filing a claim with the insurance company.
|
There's actually a very good point to *not* filing a claim. Rates
have been known to increase and policies canceled due to these
types of claims. Even if not, it will be kept on your record as a
filed claim and the total number of those *will* affect your
rates and insurability.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frances Kemmish
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:25 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
Dylan Nicholson wrote:
| Quote: | "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2v008hF2f7irmU1@uni-berlin.de...
Homes are usually insured for damage by fire or other hazards. The premiums
paid for such insurance are lower when the homeowner will pay some amount
towards the repairs required when damage occurs. That amount is called a
deductible, and quite often it is set at $500. If the repairs cost less
than $500, there is no point in filing a claim with the insurance company.
Called an 'excess' in this part of the world - and I'm not sure *all* policies
would have the flexibility of exchanging a higher excess for a lower
premium. Any other terms in use?
|
A "deductible" of $500 would mean that the insurers would pay the costs
in excess of $500. An "excess" in the UK works the same way.
When I worked for the CEGB, and drove a company car, the insurance
carried a "franchise", rather than an "excess". That meant that if the
repairs cost less than the amount, nothing was paid by the insurers, but
if the repairs cost more than the amount, the insurers paid all the cost.
Fran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dylan Nicholson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:31 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
"Frances Kemmish" <fkemmish@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:2v0djoF2fmasgU1@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: |
When I worked for the CEGB, and drove a company car, the insurance
carried a "franchise", rather than an "excess". That meant that if the
repairs cost less than the amount, nothing was paid by the insurers, but
if the repairs cost more than the amount, the insurers paid all the cost.
So as long as you could find a repair shop that would charge over the |
"franchise" amount, you were set. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frances Kemmish
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:36 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | There's actually a very good point to *not* filing a claim. Rates
have been known to increase and policies canceled due to these
types of claims. Even if not, it will be kept on your record as a
filed claim and the total number of those *will* affect your
rates and insurability.
|
I don't know if this is so in the USA, but, in the UK, there would be a
risk that, by not making a claim, and not reporting the loss to the
insurance company, you could invalidate your insurance.
Fran |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:37 pm
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
In article <2v0e87F2f882hU1@uni-berlin.de>, Frances Kemmish at
fkemmish@optonline.net poured forth...
| Quote: | don groves wrote:
There's actually a very good point to *not* filing a claim. Rates
have been known to increase and policies canceled due to these
types of claims. Even if not, it will be kept on your record as a
filed claim and the total number of those *will* affect your
rates and insurability.
I don't know if this is so in the USA, but, in the UK, there would be a
risk that, by not making a claim, and not reporting the loss to the
insurance company, you could invalidate your insurance.
|
I've never heard that here but it speaks the same kind of
language as our rules. Insurance companies don't exist to pay off
claims, they exist to avoid paying if at all possible.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Ings
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:56 pm
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:37:31 -0800, don groves <dgroves@domain.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | There's actually a very good point to *not* filing a claim. Rates
have been known to increase and policies canceled due to these
types of claims. Even if not, it will be kept on your record as a
filed claim and the total number of those *will* affect your
rates and insurability.
I don't know if this is so in the USA, but, in the UK, there would be a
risk that, by not making a claim, and not reporting the loss to the
insurance company, you could invalidate your insurance.
I've never heard that here but it speaks the same kind of
language as our rules. Insurance companies don't exist to pay off
claims, they exist to avoid paying if at all possible.
|
Exactly. And ANY excuse will do. There have been instances in Canada
where insurance coverage was dropped because someone called up and
asked if a certain kind of loss was covered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:02 pm
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
On 05 Nov 2004, Frances Kemmish wrote
| Quote: | don groves wrote:
There's actually a very good point to *not* filing a claim. Rates
have been known to increase and policies canceled due to these
types of claims. Even if not, it will be kept on your record as a
filed claim and the total number of those *will* affect your
rates and insurability.
I don't know if this is so in the USA, but, in the UK, there would
be a risk that, by not making a claim, and not reporting the loss
to the insurance company, you could invalidate your insurance.
|
I don't know about buildings insurance, but I'm certain that's the case
in the UK for car insurance.
The small print in every policy I've had states that the insured is
under an obligation to report any matter or incident which is relevant
to calculating the premium, and that is taken to mean traffic offences
and all incidents -- regardless of fault or of a claim being made/not
made.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:29 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
Dylan Nicholson rakstija:
| Quote: | "Frances Kemmish" wrote:
When I worked for the CEGB, and drove a company car, the insurance
carried a "franchise", rather than an "excess". That meant that if
the repairs cost less than the amount, nothing was paid by the
insurers, but if the repairs cost more than the amount, the insurers
paid all the cost.
So as long as you could find a repair shop that would charge over the
"franchise" amount, you were set.
|
That's a common scam in these parts. Something similar works also with
"deductibles". The shop simply prepares an invoice to the insurance company
that is higher by the amount of the deductible, so that when they receive
payment from the company, it covers the actual costs, and the insured does
not pay anything. The practice appears to be fairly bluntly advertised in
some local flyers by auto glass replacement shops, with statements like "If
you have insurance, it'll cost you nothing." In the phone book Yellow Pages
they are a bit more careful about how they put it.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:52 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
In article <iutmo01hi411vm7rcspdlh1n011evth52t@4ax.com>, John
Ings at nodamned@spam.org poured forth...
| Quote: | On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 23:37:31 -0800, don groves <dgroves@domain.net
wrote:
There's actually a very good point to *not* filing a claim. Rates
have been known to increase and policies canceled due to these
types of claims. Even if not, it will be kept on your record as a
filed claim and the total number of those *will* affect your
rates and insurability.
I don't know if this is so in the USA, but, in the UK, there would be a
risk that, by not making a claim, and not reporting the loss to the
insurance company, you could invalidate your insurance.
I've never heard that here but it speaks the same kind of
language as our rules. Insurance companies don't exist to pay off
claims, they exist to avoid paying if at all possible.
Exactly. And ANY excuse will do. There have been instances in Canada
where insurance coverage was dropped because someone called up and
asked if a certain kind of loss was covered.
|
Yes. That happened here recently as well. It's considered a
"claim" if you inquire about one.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:16 am
Post subject: Re: I can't understand the reason why the homeowner did not |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 11:29:07 -0800, "Skitt" <skitt99@comcast.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Dylan Nicholson rakstija:
"Frances Kemmish" wrote:
When I worked for the CEGB, and drove a company car, the insurance
carried a "franchise", rather than an "excess". That meant that if
the repairs cost less than the amount, nothing was paid by the
insurers, but if the repairs cost more than the amount, the insurers
paid all the cost.
So as long as you could find a repair shop that would charge over the
"franchise" amount, you were set.
That's a common scam in these parts. Something similar works also with
"deductibles". The shop simply prepares an invoice to the insurance company
that is higher by the amount of the deductible, so that when they receive
payment from the company, it covers the actual costs, and the insured does
not pay anything. The practice appears to be fairly bluntly advertised in
some local flyers by auto glass replacement shops, with statements like "If
you have insurance, it'll cost you nothing." In the phone book Yellow Pages
they are a bit more careful about how they put it.
|
Dunno about all states, but there is no deductible with windshield
replacement. Insurance automatically pays all. It's illegal to drive
in Florida with a cracked or broken windshield.
If you have State Farm or Allstate automobile insurance, you'd be hard
pressed in Florida to find a body shop that will fudge the estimate to
include your deductible. State Farm and Allstate really control the
body shops and require proof of payment of the deductible by the
insured. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in