Insurance Discussion [Split from Slave Lake Thread]

[Azure]

I have no problem with the province or the federal government donating money to help those in need.

But they shouldn't have to pay for a new house because some guy didn't have insurance.

[hmmhmmcamo]

Originally Posted by HOOT

It doesn't matter that it was a freak fire that took out their entire community, they should still be prepared for a fire. Forest fires aren't some new thing that just popped on in the middle of Alberta. I read last night that there are 100+ forest fires active right now in Alberta, and almost 20 started in the last 24hrs (when I read the report). So saying this is a freak incident is crazy and as a homeowner they should have been prepared for a forest fire, doesn't matter that it was the whole town.

Of those 100+ fires burning in AB right now, how many are wiping out entire towns? Why are American news networks like CNN covering the story if it’s just another fire that people should have been prepared for? I think it’s crazy to not recognize that a fire taking out an entire town is a freak incident.

[speede5]

Hoot
Your not wrong about the need/responsibility to have insurance, your just a bit cold hearted. I can almost gaurantee that if you read your policy closely you will find a few areas you either thought were covered and aren't or where there are max payouts which will nowhere near cover your loss in certain situations.


Funny thing is this whole thread is based on speculation that people aren't insured.

[Raekwon]

Insurance cheques have already started rolling out here, I'm glad to see how fast insurance is responding.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by speede5

Funny thing is this whole thread is based on speculation that people aren't insured.

That's the thing though a lot of people have no clue what they are insured for and I'm sure are going to be a lot of cases where people aren't insured for what they thought they were or not insured at all.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by hmmhmmcamo

Of those 100+ fires burning in AB right now, how many are wiping out entire towns? Why are American news networks like CNN covering the story if it’s just another fire that people should have been prepared for? I think it’s crazy to not recognize that a fire taking out an entire town is a freak incident.

Remember why you buy insurance: For things that are low probability but of extremely high impact. Insurance by definition was made for events like this. Seriously these are things you should be thinking about when buying a home and deciding to insure it.

If we let all those uninsured people off the hook on this one it sets a precident and slowly one disaster after another we breed a society of people with no foresight. It's what the insurance companies call 'moral hazard' where people take on more risk because ultimately someone else is paying for it.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by hmmhmmcamo

Of those 100+ fires burning in AB right now, how many are wiping out entire towns? Why are American news networks like CNN covering the story if it’s just another fire that people should have been prepared for? I think it’s crazy to not recognize that a fire taking out an entire town is a freak incident.

The whole town burning is a freak incident, however, as a homeowner you should be prepared for a candle to burn down your house just as much as a forest fire or a 'freak' fire incident. If you have property you can't replace if something happens to it, insure it.

Originally Posted by speede5

Hoot
Your not wrong about the need/responsibility to have insurance, your just a bit cold hearted.

I am willing to admit it sounds cold hearted, but at the same time why do I pay $1,200 a year for my insurance, when my neighbour may pay $0, yet we both get our house rebuilt if an insurable loss happens? How does that make sense? Why do I carry insurance? Why do insurance companies exist?

I can almost gaurantee that if you read your policy closely you will find a few areas you either thought were covered and aren't or where there are max payouts which will nowhere near cover your loss in certain situations.

Also I'm in insurance, so I'm pretty confident that I know the wordings of the polcies I sell on a daily basis. I'm aware of any limits on my policy and if I have things that I can insure that aren't, I would put a rider on my insurance to fill in that gap. I also know things like a Tsunami is not covered by my policy but in that situation the government would step in because it's an uninsurable loss.

Funny thing is this whole thread is based on speculation that people aren't insured.

If every person in Slake Lake who was effected by this has insurance then good on them. But I highly doubt that is the case. I see it all the time where a condo/apartment building will burn down and someone won't have insurance and they start collecting donations for the people. I think it's great that people are willing to help others out but at the same time that person put themselves in that situation to start with so the government won't jump in.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by fotze

- Not sure that this type of fire is covered by insurance - They are notorious for getting out of paying out.

We know this is covered by an All Risk policy, which are available for any Albertan to purchase. If someone picked a borad policy with the exclusion of forest fires to save money, then it's their fault.

or pay out to Vancouver when the expected and inevitable earthquake hits there, then lets pay out these guys.

The government has already said they will not protect any homeowners from the earthquake because the coverage is available from insurance companies accross the province. It's an insurable loss, so there would be no government help if something happened. This is why $500 of my $1200 a year go towards earthquake coverages. Maybe I should save some money and take that off my policy sounds like I would have tons of people sending me money to rebuild my home.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HOOT

We know this is covered by an All Risk policy, which are available for any Albertan to purchase. If someone picked a borad policy with the exclusion of forest fires to save money, then it's their fault.

There's going to be people complaining that everything's just too complicated to be expected to properly manage their lives. Whenever preventable economic losses are suffered one of these idiots always comes out of the woodwork to be a subject of a human interest piece on the news. The story is always the same ethos: Idiot makes bad decision or doesn't do enough due diligence in decision or cheaps out on added protection features, idiot is directly bit in the ass by said idiocy or sloth, idiot seeks out the media and cries about loss and how evil businessmen screwed over such a well-meaning 'everyman' like himself, appeals to government or some form of authority to save his sorry ass.

[Hockeyguy15]

The world is ending on the 21st, Slave Lake was just a head of the curve.

[jydk]

Originally Posted by HOOT

The government has already said they will not protect any homeowners from the earthquake because the coverage is available from insurance companies accross the province. It's an insurable loss, so there would be no government help if something happened. This is why $500 of my $1200 a year go towards earthquake coverages. Maybe I should save some money and take that off my policy sounds like I would have tons of people sending me money to rebuild my home.

You pay $500 a year just for earthquake coverage? Where do you live? If you say Calgary your getting ripped of huge my friend. I can't speak for every carrier that protects Calgary homes but my insurer, to add a rider that'll cover a loss from an earth quake charges ~$25

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by jydk

You pay $500 a year just for earthquake coverage? Where do you live? If you say Calgary your getting ripped of huge my friend. I can't speak for every carrier that protects Calgary homes but my insurer, to add a rider that'll cover a loss from an earth quake charges ~$25

I live on Vancouver Island (Victoria, BC) so my situation is a little bit different than in Alberta.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Is the government planning on helping the uninsured in this situation?

I'd support sending them a $1-off coupon for the book, Protecting Yourself with Insurance for Idiots.

[kipperfan]

There is no reason not to have home insurance, in any instance. If you cannot afford it, you clearly cannot afford to own a home and should be renting. As HOOT mentioned, any All Perils policy offered in Alberta would cover this damage.

Just because this happens to have been a large scale event that ruined multiple properties is no reason to bail out those who were not intelligent enough to insure themselves. A fire is a pretty foreseeable event, they happen all the time, all year round, in cities and towns, large and small. Living out in the middle of the bush I would think an All Perils policy would be a no brainer.

Lets consider this, why should Slave resident A, whom has paid his home insurance for the last 30 years, spending a good amount of his own money in the process, be given the same reimbursement in this situation as Slave resident B, who has lived un-insured for the last 30 years, spending his excess money on beer and ciggy's?

By doing something like that you're basically rendering insurance useless. Is the government also going to provide reimbursement to all of the insured home owners who have been paying insurance premiums for 'god knows how long', only to receive no benefit at all for doing so? How is it fair to those people to have spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars over the years to prevent against this exact type of situation, only to have the protection they paid for extended to all residents upon the situation (the one they paid to protect against) actually occurring?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

FYI condo insurance covers the structure only, your "content" insurance better be enough to cover everything inside including appliances, cabinetry etc.

That wasn't the case with the Millrise fire. The condo's building insurance replaced the units back to a "new" state. Meaning whatever the unit was like when it was purchased, including appliances, cabinetry, finishes, etc. If you had upgraded those things your content policy would have needed a provision otherwise it would be built back to that new state.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Burninator

That wasn't the case with the Millrise fire. The condo's building insurance replaced the units back to a "new" state. Meaning whatever the unit was like when it was purchased, including appliances, cabinetry, finishes, etc. If you had upgraded those things your content policy would have needed a provision otherwise it would be built back to that new state.

Was anyone found liabile for that fire?

[Finny61]

From my understanding on that fire, it came from a cigarette dropped in a flower pot on a balcony that had some peat moss. Don't quote me on it though, I could be mistaken. I don't know that anything came out of it as far as liability action against a specific unit owner.

The condo corp would be placing insurance for the actual building structure. My initial thought would be any items in that actual unit that aren't structural (or permanently fixed) would be the responsibility of the unit owner? Would this not mean kitchen appliances would be the unit owner's responsibility?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Finny61

From my understanding on that fire, it came from a cigarette dropped in a flower pot on a balcony that had some peat moss. Don't quote me on it though, I could be mistaken. I don't know that anything came out of it as far as liability action against a specific unit owner.

The condo corp would be placing insurance for the actual building structure. My initial thought would be any items in that actual unit that aren't structural (or permanently fixed) would be the responsibility of the unit owner? Would this not mean kitchen appliances would be the unit owner's responsibility?

You're correct about the appliances and other contents (assuming BC and Alberta are similar in their strata policies) but I would be curious if there was a settlement by the insured's company who put the cigarette into the flower pot. There doesn't have to be an actual lawsuit against the company for that to happen because the other units would have their stuff covered by their insurance company (with a deductible, which they probably get back if they even had to pay at all) and then the insurance company would go after the company of the person who's unit started the fire, and most likely because of legal costs stayed out of court. The insurance companies have a pretty good idea of what is worth fighting and what is not, and if their client is clearly at fault it's not worth the money and time in court, just pay out the other's losses. This is actually why it's important to get a higher liability ($2m+) when living in an apartment style building.

That doesn't mean that's the case but it happens a lot and usually stays out of the public eye because the companies deal with it internally with each other. I'd be curious to find out for sure.

[Finny61]

Ask Aviva, I think they were on that building.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by speede5

You are required to provide proof of insurance when you sign your mortgage, but there is no enforcement on maintaning it.

When we receive notification of cancelled insurance we notify the borrower they need to provide proof of new insurance.

It is an ongoing condition from most financial institutions.