[News] Flames suing insurers for $125 million in COVID related losses

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

No, he thinks you are a mark

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

But it's not a stock, it's business. The years the team makes the playoffs, they can make a lot of money. During the dark years, the team obviously was losing money - which is why the rich owners threatened to move. The same way they make their little threats around the arena deal. Because they are not charities.

Ironically, Lemieux is probably closest to an owner doing charity work and he made millions upon millions in doing so.

I'd add that it's also a hobby. And prestige/ego thing. And networking/hosting opportunity. And opportunity for branding/integration with other businesses (e.g. RCR ads during Flames broadcasts).

Typical stock investments don't come with any of those perks. Similarly, if you're into cars or art or wine you can generate a decent ROI while having enjoyable experiences. All investments involve risk; I'd argue that the potentially lower ROIs from hobby-investments are massively mitigated by the experiences included.

[SofaProfessor]

The number of people in this thread that think this lawsuit will materially affect the cost of insuring their beige 2011 Corolla is kind of funny.

The Fort McMurray wildfire cost insurers more than $3.5 billion. I literally just went back to my first home policy I bought the year before that and it was actually more than what I pay now. $125 million lawsuit, if they lose, is probably nothing to them. Worst case scenario you might see $1 extra per month "Calgary Flames Surcharge" on your next renewal. An annual hail storm over Calgary is more of a concern than a one time lawsuit by a hockey team.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

I have no sympathy for insurance companies. Best of luck to the Flames.

Working in the insurance industry… I do have sympathy. If the policy excludes pandemics… deny the claim. Easy.

If you want pandemic coverage… pay for it. An all risk policy can still have exclusions… such as pandemics… riots… war…

[eddly]

Originally Posted by dino7c

It's not really strange IMO

You spend your money on insurance to cover all risks and when something happens they say...oh except that.

These companies are crooks, happens on the smaller scale all the time

Uh… nope. Not crooks. Read your policy exclusions clearly stated in your policy.

[eddly]

Originally Posted by tripin_billie

Interesting to see the Flames following up with their own suite. They weren't part of the 20 teams that already sued as a combined entity: https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com...es-321181.aspx

I hope the teams all win. Insurance companies love to collect premiums and then try to squirm out of paying with any measure possible. If you can't actually cover the losses (and the insurer should be re-insured for this), then they shouldn't be offering the insurance product in the first place.

Maybe they didn’t offer a product for pandemic insurance?

[eddly]

Originally Posted by Boreal

Insurance is organized fraud.

They sell “peace of mind” until they try to weasel out on a technicality.

Hmmm… you are probably wrong…

[eddly]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

It's not just one insurer, RSA (which is now a part of Intact) & Aviva are big writers in Canada. Northbridge is also a big player.

Reinsurance comes into play. Reinsurance is insurance for insurance companies… to partially protect their exposure against large losses. If the reinsurers have to step in to cover a large loss like this… reinsurance treaty costs in Canada will increase. As a result, your policy premium will increase too. The losses of the few are shared with the many!

[eddly]

Large risks like this will have a lead insurer who covers the largest portion, other insurers jump in to diversify the risk. The lead insurer sets the policy wordings. The other insurers jumping in are stuck with the wordings provided by the lead insurer.

Oh and to be clear, I don’t work for any of the insurers being sued.

[powderjunkie]

Did your forum policy have a multi-quote button exclusion?

[eddly]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Did your forum policy have a multi-quote button exclusion?

Probably not. Point taken though, I’ll stop posting in this thread.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by eddly

Hmmm… you are probably wrong…

Hmmm… you probably sell insurance.

[Boreal]

Originally Posted by eddly

Maybe they didn’t offer a product for pandemic insurance?

Maybe it was a preexisting condition?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by SofaProfessor

The number of people in this thread that think this lawsuit will materially affect the cost of insuring their beige 2011 Corolla is kind of funny.

The Fort McMurray wildfire cost insurers more than $3.5 billion. I literally just went back to my first home policy I bought the year before that and it was actually more than what I pay now. $125 million lawsuit, if they lose, is probably nothing to them. Worst case scenario you might see $1 extra per month "Calgary Flames Surcharge" on your next renewal. An annual hail storm over Calgary is more of a concern than a one time lawsuit by a hockey team.

I do remember my condo insurance increasing quite a bit after the Calgary floods. I went to three different insurers and each said it had to do with my postal code / location. I was untouched by the flood

There was also a huge increase in snow removal insurance due to increased litigation just recently covered in the news.

But this policy/issue is not location or industry specific so the loss / premium would likely get spread out over the entire industry.

[Enoch Root]

the flood damage was in the billions, and was location specific

[Strange Brew]

I’m certain the cost of carrying insurance has outpaced inflation for a very long time. Lots of reasons behind that. Insurance companies making lots of money is part of it, but so are the countless insurance fraud schemes that happen every day.

Although it was nice getting a partial refund on my car premiums at the onset of Covid so I will give them that.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by Cappy

I do remember my condo insurance increasing quite a bit after the Calgary floods. I went to three different insurers and each said it had to do with my postal code / location. I was untouched by the flood

There was also a huge increase in your snow removal insurance due to increased litigation just recently covered in the news.

But this policy/issue is not location or industry specific so the loss / premium would likely get spread out over the entire industry.

Huh? Never heard of such a thing. Don’t know what that means.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by eddly

Uh… nope. Not crooks. Read your policy exclusions clearly stated in your policy.

TD denied a water claim for a backed up roof drain even though I had an extended water damage endorsement that specifically covered backed up roof drains. Their specified reason was that only below ground water was covered. I guess I should have realized that I was only paying to insure the roof drains that were located below ground level. Silly me, they definitely aren't crooks.

[getbak]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1507452626748641281