Home Insurance Premiums

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by kevman

I find the best way to come to peace with insurance companies is realize they're not there to protect you but rather to protect the banks. The banks mandate you get insurance on the property they mortgaged so that in the event of a total loss their asset is protected. Once you realize insurance is nothing more than a monthly fee and you give up all expectation that they'll be of any help when something goes wrong it's easier to make the payment and move on.

Yes I'm cynical...

On a side note, it'd be great if you could opt out of hail damage protection. This new roof every 5 years gig is costing us a fortune!

You can save some money, by not insuring your contents.

As long as you own the items in your house, there is no requirement to insurer them.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Slava

Is this what you do for a living? My premiums went through the roof and I can't say I'm particularly thrilled with that. How likely is it that there are premium reductions from one insurer to another at this point?

My deductible doubled and I think my premium did as well...

It is indeed. And I don't blame you for not being thrilled with the increase. I'm not either.

It's very possible to find and insurer to do the same coverage for a cheaper price. Some carriers are still well within reasonable territory.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Insurers are in the business of making money, you know like most companies. They are not in the business of risk management.

Weird argument. I am aware all companies are in business to make money. Insurance companies' business is the risk management business. Just like how oil and gas companies are in the oil and gas business. You're argument is alike to saying grocery stores aren't in the food business, they are in the money business. A shoe store isn't in the shoe business, they're in the money business. Brilliant.

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

During the floods, there were numerous examples of insurers covering damages that were not covered under the policy. A large majority of my in-laws neighbours in High River were covered to some extent for losses that resulted from events that were specifically denied under the policy.

I know that it's difficult for somebody to post an opinion on the internet without having the capitalist white knights arriving on the scene to defend large banks and insurance companies that borderline abuse their market power in political influence through lobbying, but please. Why do you think the insurance companies decided to cover losses not covered by their existing policies? I have my theories but would love to know why you think they decided to be so charitable?

Why is it such a difficult concept for consumers to want a little bit more from the businesses that service them? Insurance companies these days will do their best to ensure a policy is as confusing and unprotective as possible. While yes, I realize why they are doing this, is there no ethical line or obligation on the part of the so called insurance company to actually provide adequate coverage?

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I have no love nor concern for insurers (I actually can't remember the last one that went bankrupt), but to say "they don't take their fair share of the battle.............turn around and rape consumers" is also unfair and appears to be uneducated.

How is it an unfair statement? I feel similarly about the oligopoly of banks in this country. Are you an insurance expert? Please feel free to hop off that high horse and educate me oh insurance master.

[oilyfan]

Does the insurance companies not have an ethical obligation to deliver profit to its shareholders? they would not be in business very long if they don't.

They are in the business to make money, while that might not jibe with your ethical stance, that is the reality.

[RW99]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I know that it's difficult for somebody to post an opinion on the internet without having the capitalist white knights arriving on the scene to defend large banks and insurance companies that borderline abuse their market power in political influence through lobbying, but please.

Please provide one creditable source showing how much money insurance companies make. You've said it twice now, but you haven't provided any proof. Banks make plenty of money, but show me where they get their profit from insurance. And to note, there are only 2 banks that own insurance companies (that I am aware of).

Please also provide any proof of lobbying. Show us those corporate donations linking insurance companies to all the provincial governments allowing them to abuse their market power.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Why do you think the insurance companies decided to cover losses not covered by their existing policies? I have my theories but would love to know why you think they decided to be so charitable?

No residential insurance company provides flooding coverage. They do mostly offer sewer backup coverage as an endorsement. The key was the wording. Some said no flooding but yes to sewer backup. And some said no sewer backups relating to a flood. The companies in the latter didn't have to pay out. The reason they did it? PR.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Why is it such a difficult concept for consumers to want a little bit more from the businesses that service them? Insurance companies these days will do their best to ensure a policy is as confusing and unprotective as possible. While yes, I realize why they are doing this, is there no ethical line or obligation on the part of the so called insurance company to actually provide adequate coverage?

You say they do their best to make it confusing and unprotective. Can I ask, how are insurance policies different than any other legal document? Are cellphone contracts easy to read? How about those legal documents that came with your mortgage? Any legal document has to be written so it is not vague, so it is black and white. If an insurance policy was easy to read, it would be vague and no one would really know what they were getting. It is written so it can not be any ambiguity. I'm not a lawyer so maybe they can explain it better. But this will never change. It has to be detailed so both sides know exactly what is covered.

It's not a difficult concept to ask more from the services they receive. I want Shaw to stop screwing around with my internet. But when you talk like they are some evil entity like Wolfram & Hart, it is hard not to respond. In the six years I was in this business with two different companies, not once did I feel I was apart of something evil. I'd seen every type of auto and home claim from cracked windshields to houses being destroyed to entire families being lost in an auto accident. And with every claim I had ever denied I did not feel we were doing the wrong thing. I felt empathy for their loss, I helped those that I could and provided what advice for those I couldn't. People who make insurance claims are never going to be happy when they call. All of them would have experienced loss. I was on the other end of that phone and I know I did provide a valuable service to them.

In the end, this post is more for other people than for you. I understand now how lawyers, used car sales people and anyone else who is treated badly due to ignorance. Based on what I am reading, you will never change your position. I believe you or someone you know has had a bad experience with an insurance company and it is just too personal for you now. Just because they didn't get paid, it doesn't mean it was wrong.

I am no longer in insurance, but I have plenty of experience with claims and underwriting auto and home insurance. If anyone has any questions or needs some friendly advice, feel free to PM me