I HATE Insurance... - DPChallenge Forums

10/01/2012 11:41:41 PM · #1

That's it really.

My house and contents policy has just come up for renewal. It's OVER $4000 more per year than last year. The j*&^@!# policy is now over $6500K per year. Apparently 'rating factors have changed'. Bah. If my house flooded, my entire freckin town would have coastal views - and I live 300km inland.

I understand that claims have increased in my area etc etc etc, but OVER 4 FECKIN GRAND????????? F**K em. They just lost my business.

/endrant

Message edited by author 2012-10-01 23:42:35.

10/01/2012 11:46:19 PM · #2

Originally posted by pamb:

I've been quite happily self-insured on all of my property for a very long time now.... The only policy I carry is the car liability/medical.

10/01/2012 11:47:33 PM · #3

My bank won't allow 'self-insurance' policies on their very expensive mortgage.

10/01/2012 11:51:20 PM · #4

Originally posted by pamb:

My bank won't allow 'self-insurance' policies on their very expensive mortgage.

Yes, there is that. I'm so used to not dealing with mortgages that I forget these things.

10/01/2012 11:52:28 PM · #5

Oh maan, Cory, don't take this the wrong way please, but oh, what a problem to have!! :)

eta: I'd love to be able to 'forget' that sort of stuff :)

Message edited by author 2012-10-01 23:53:41.

10/01/2012 11:55:09 PM · #6

Originally posted by pamb:

Oh maan, Cory, don't take this the wrong way please, but oh, what a problem to have!! :)

:) Not at all... I'm sure you're looking forward to it yourself.

10/02/2012 12:00:41 AM · #7

Yeah, I am, but it won't happen for quite some time. Right now I'm just really upset and angry. Same ol' same old. Been a customer of theirs for 20 years, don't claim etc etc. And just cannot afford that type of increase. The cheapest other option is still over $1200 per year more. And as noted, we just don't have a choice.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/02/2012 12:06:58 AM · #8

Originally posted by pamb:

:(

Sorry, it really does stink, I think insurance should be illegal, or run by non-profit agencies if mandated by law.

..

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

10/02/2012 11:08:04 AM · #9

Don't know if it is the same company or not, but my sister's homeowners DOUBLED and she didn't find out until this week because her premium is due in 2 weeks. when she mentioned it in class, one of our student's mentioned that his mom's had done the same thing (same company).

When asked why, all the company would say was, "We've had a lot of claims this year."

The student's mom has already switched and my sister is researching before paying her next premium.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

10/02/2012 11:43:34 AM · #10

There needs to be laws against this, all policies should be based on risk and if you live in an area with essentially zero risk why should you be expected to have to cover someone who has lots of risk.

maybe if they stopped insuring these high risk areas people would stop living there and thus our rates wont be affected.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

10/02/2012 01:14:00 PM · #11

I was the IT Manager at an insurance company for the worst year of my life until I finally woke up and called it quits. Because the word 'manager' was in my title I had the dubious honour of having to sit in on the twice weekly 'management' meetings.

I'll never forget the morning the CEO yelled, pounding on the long boardroom table, spit flying from his mouth, "WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF MAKING MONEY, NOT GIVING IT AWAY !!!"

Insurance is a scam for middlemen.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

10/02/2012 02:09:35 PM · #12

Originally posted by mike_311:

There needs to be laws against this, all policies should be based on risk...

I don't know where

pamb lives, but unless there's some legal regulation that is affecting the market, homeowner's policies *are* based pretty much entirely on risk. Underwriters walk a fine line between setting prices high enough to cover claims, and low enough so that they'll still sell policies. Their goal is to sell most of their policies to people with the lowest risk, and fewer policies to people with higher risk, and they will set their pricing accordingly.

Insurance companies are constantly tweaking their underwriting criteria. Having underwriting criteria that accurately prices in a particular customer's risk is the difference between an insurance company making money or not. They employ a lot of very wonky people who spend all day doing math and running computer models to try to decide what raises and lowers the risk of claims. A change in rating criteria means that they've changed the criteria that they use to determine

pamb's risk, which apparently affected her rates. A lot.

That said, all companies set their own underwriting criteria. She should shop around.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

10/02/2012 03:03:46 PM · #13

i would hope that's the case, and im all for government staying out when possible but im sure that collusion is possible to some extent for the insurance companies to make up lost money after a disaster from those unaffected by it.

see Hurricane Katrina from a few years ago, i live 1500 miles away yet my rates were affected, not as severely as Pam's but affected nonetheless.

10/02/2012 07:05:07 PM · #14

This is exactly the problem. I live in Central Queensland, Australia and thousands and thousands of square km's were affected by extensive flooding in both the 2008 and 2010/2011 floods. Ironically we'd essentially been in drought for 10-15 years prior to this. Lots and lots of people lost lots and lots of stuff. In my own rural town there was extensive damage. I have heaps of sympathy for them and did my community bit and helped out / sheltered people / cleaned up afterward. I understand that insurance companies have shelled out heaps of cash in the last several years. My issue with MY premium increasing so extensively is that my husband and I understand the flood plains around our area and deliberately CHOSE to build in a place that is unaffected. Unlike people who have built (and the old school council planners - local people who've been around forever too - allowed them to build) in completely flood prone areas. These are areas that, many years ago, people regularly canoed in when it rained for pity's sake.

I definitely have issues with being penalised for other people's stuff ups. Other people's decisions.

Some insurance companies will no longer insure this post code AT ALL. That limits options too. And I'm effectively being limited and penalised by this, despite the fact that my home and those around me are in an extremely low danger area from a flood event.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/02/2012 08:46:32 PM · #15

Surely the insurance company could provide you with a premium that does NOT include flood protection and that I would think would reduce the premiums... or am I living in LALA land here?

Ray

PS: Really enjoyed meeting you at the Emerald GTG.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/02/2012 11:45:48 PM · #16

Originally posted by pamb:

Some insurance companies will no longer insure this post code AT ALL. That limits options too. And I'm effectively being limited and penalised by this, despite the fact that my home and those around me are in an extremely low danger area from a flood event.

We have a somewhat similar situation, though not as extreme, on Cape Cod; we are, after all, a sandbar in the Atlantic Ocean, and we DO get visited by hurricanes which, historically, can cause a lot of flooding in addition to wind damage. Basically, it's almost impossible to buy home insurance the usual way; instead, we have to use Massachusetts's "assigned-risk" plan, the FAIR plan, and it's expensive. The frustrating thing is, where we are is high enough not to flood and somewhat sheltered from high winds as well, so our place, which has been around for a long time, has never suffered significant storm damage.

It feels kind of like a racket, but what's to be done...?

10/03/2012 02:30:20 AM · #17

That IS the premium without flood cover.

Mike