by hummingbird » Mon Dec 31, 2007 04:39 pm
My in-laws filed a claim with thier insurance company. The floor underneath their hot water heater had collasped. The insurance would not pay, said the floor would have to completely fall to the ground .Does homeowners insurance pay for termite damge? They claimed it was water damage although the hot water heater never leaked. I fill like like a lot of insurance company fail their customers.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 07:31 am Post Subject:
Losses usually need to be "sudden and accidental". A slow leaking water leak or termite damage would be maintenance issues and are usually excluded under the policy. The insurance company expects the owner to keep up with ongoing repairs.
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 10:09 am Post Subject:
I agree totally with tcope...NO homeowners policy will cover termites. And not only does the loss need to be sudden and accidental but generally a named peril. What caused the floor to collape? Since you ask about termite damage are we to assume that is the culprit? If so termites do love moisture, so it's possible there was a small leak. Again as tcope said these are maintence issues.
I fill like like a lot of insurance company fail their customers
Maybe they do in some cases, but the vast majority are that the insured doesn't take the time to find out EXACTLY what they are insured against. Meaning many times people purchase a policy and think they are covered for anything that happens...(home or auto), when in fact they are covered/protected against certain things....no P&C policy covers maintence which a lot of people seem to think they do....I can't tell you the number of claims I've denied over the years for this very type of thing. (ie) ''Well, I knew that pipe was leaking cause the wall/floor have been kind of wet for years, but now I want the insurance company to fix it because the floor and wall have finally collapsed''...Unfortunate, but had they been diligent home owners (not saying your inlaws are not, but just an example), they could've nipped this in the bud, by making the necessary repairs when the slow leak started!
Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 09:07 pm Post Subject:
I agree, if your roof was leaking and you just let it go for years and years and then it caused major damage to all of your furniture and appliances, No, it would not be covered. Would it not be great if they covered home maintenance, I sure would be calling them up, LOL, unfortunately termites can only be taken care of by exterminating, have they called an exterminator out, if they fix it, they will just continue to naw at the new wood and they will have to fix it all over again. Sorry you did not find the answer that you wanted, but I do believe that tscope and Lori are right once again, home maintenance is not covered.
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 01:02 pm Post Subject:
I do beleive that the damage was cause by an unseen cause. I beleive that there was water underneath the house.Hum, I am beginning to see that home owners insurance is just as bad as car insurance.Seems like the only winners here are the insurance agencies. Maybe you could answer a question for me that I have never understood. It is required by law to have car insurance so why is it that you pay premiums for years and then if you need to use it the rates goes up?
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 01:09 am Post Subject:
First... I here and understand what your saying.
In the case of the home damage, it's still an ongoing issue and a maintenance issue. When it comes to termites, people are suppose to have periodical checks (personally, I trust the information from termite companies about as far as I can throw the employee that comes out). I lived in Florida for 25 years... I had my house treated once and then paid about $100/year for a warranty against future problems.
As far as insurance rates, it's because insurance premium is based on risk and not claims paid. Rates are not usually adjusted just because a claim is filed, they are adjusted based on what happen in the loss. Insurance provides protection _in case_ a loss occurs and therefore, a premium is charged based on the possibility of that loss and it's size.
Let me ask you a question... would it be better if insurance companies only paid out as much as the person paid in? That is, if your premium were $1000/year and you caused/suffered a $20,000 loss, should you be required to pay on the policy for 20 years before the claim was paid? Doesn't make any sense, right? Why wait until you have paid in the same amount of the loss before you can collect... in that case the insurance would not be needed. Your insurance company is _assuming_ your risk, up to the policy limits. As such, they charge a premium _based on that risk_. Here is the other part... it's not just _your_ risk that they are considering. They have to pool many people's risks together. Otherwise you'd be right back to what I mentioned above... if the possibility was good that you could cause/have a $100,000 loss, your premium would be about $10,000/year!
Here is how you need to look at insurance... it allows you to go through life and the things you do in life knowing that a loss is not going to derail everything you have worked for. It's not meant to assume all responsibility/liability... only a portion of it. Sometimes that can suck.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 01:42 am Post Subject: example
My son hit a deer. He turned in a claim and his rates went up. He has definitly paid out more than what his claim was so they have still made money on his poilcy so why the need to raise his rates.Is he at a higher risk than anyone else because he hit a deer?
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 03:04 am Post Subject:
My son hit a deer. He turned in a claim and his rates went up. He has definitely paid out more than what his claim was so they have still made money on his policy so why the need to raise his rates.Is he at a higher risk than anyone else because he hit a deer?
To most extent, no (only slightly as it appears that he could be driving in an area where deer are often found). Most carrier won't increase rates because of a single animal accident. There could be 3 reasons for this.... lower premium he could find. That is, some carriers know most people are looking for the lowest rate possible, they give it to them, only to increase rates at the drop of a hat. The adjuster coded the claim as "at-fault" and should not have. Lastly, is it known that the claim actually increased the rate or is it possible that the rate increase was across the board?Question... if your son "bumped" into someone and they complained of injuries, it's not unusual for a carrier to pay out $10k on a claim. How many years would it take your son's carrier to break even on a claim like that? What guarantees does the carrier have that your son will stay with them after they pay out a claim like that? I certainly understand your point as well.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 04:44 pm Post Subject:
You certainly have a point there. I guess I am just frustrated that the average person cannot earn enough money to pay a car payment and insurance and then have anything left over to support a family. At least not in the area.Its a no win situation.
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 06:21 pm Post Subject:
Your preaching to the choir my friend... I feel your pain.
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 04:43 am Post Subject:
Always nice to know others share your views. They say changes can be brought about if enough people care.
Add your comment