OT: House insurance rip-off: their latest scam?

[orion.osiris]

Hi all,

I've been getting some odd quotes for house insurance lately. Seems they tr= y to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of 50=

0,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that! The law as I understand it states that if you are underinsured, you will no= t recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds f= air enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim the= excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it was = originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down t= he drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards over= insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

If the rebuilding cost of my house is say 250,000 pounds, it seems I have t= o pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit o= f! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

Has anyone else been faced with this stitch-up? Are there still insurers wi= lling to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now tryi= ng to screw us over with this new scam??

[alan]

to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of 500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds fair enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim the excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it was originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down the drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards over insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit of! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

willing to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now trying to screw us over with this new scam??

In my experience these type on insurance are a lot cheaper than attempting to match exact rebuilding and contents costs. In the past I have worked out the rebuilding costs and attempted to ensure for this figure but always the "one policy fits all" has worked out a lot cheaper.

[mogga]

steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of 500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds fair enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim the excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it was originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down the drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards over insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit of! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

willing to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now trying to screw us over with this new scam??

Lots don't want to know if you live within so many meters of a canal either. I think the Rochdale canal would have to flood Manchester first before it came this way. We are very near a weir althugh it's on the opposite side and it empties into a brook that heads off to Manchester so many hundred feet below here.

[newshound]

In my first house (Victorian terrace) the building soc wanted cover significantly above market value: they argued that (if it did burn down) the total cost of rebuilding including shoring up properties either side would be well above market value.

For the current house (Georgian workers' cottages, end of terrace) the insurers reckoned "market value" was OK because the plot value would be substantial if it was destroyed.

I always thought the rip-off was contents "replacement as new" where there was a significant premium *and* you were expected to value at "new" cost, and they would not have the cost of valuation of "part used" stuff. I suppose there would be a tendency for people to end up under-insured during times of inflation.

[Mike Barnes]

mogga :

ISTM that in such cases the best thing to do would be to make flood damage an explicit exclusion. I don't know how hard that would be in practice.

[Kevin]

to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of 500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

If you'd ever had to argue it out with an insurer's loss adjuster as to how much your garage would cost to rebuild, or your fences to replace, or your paving, you'd wish you'd just gone for the "plenty" option.

If you don't have "new for old" contents cover, you could be faced with either trying to buy secondhand carpets, curtains, cutlery, and so on, which might not be much fun if you had to do it all in a short period, or finding a substantial sum to bridge the gap.

[Hugh - in either England or Sp]

to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of 500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds fair enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim the excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it was originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down the drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards over insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit of! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

willing to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now trying to screw us over with this new scam??

I much prefer the one size fits all approach. It is much cheaper for the insurance companies to operate because there will be few arguments about underinsurance.

It would take someone with a lot of knowledge to estimate the rebuilding cost of a house accurately. Cost per sq metre adjusted for age and building standard will not give an accurate figure.

Some people have hardboard interior doors and others have carved ones with stained glass scenes. Some people have emulsioned walls and others have grasscloth or gold bits. Some people have £3,000 kitchens and some have £30,000. How much do you allow to relay drains if anything melts and solidifies in them?

The insurance companies are in a competitive marketplace and most will try very hard to find ways to undercut their competitors.

If you buy insurance through a supermarket sold scheme or the liem you may however find that the supermarket gets up to 40 percent of your premium. See moneysaving expert and use comparison sites.

Most insurers do not ask about nearby rivers etc. Their computers know the historic flood risk and theft risk by postcode. Not that it can be relied upon with the rain we have had this year.

[Sam Plusnet]

to steer you

pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

I'm sure you know but, building insurance is based on the cost to clear the site & rebuild the house using the original construction materials

- nothing to do with the market value of the house.

Question: What happens when the original building methods & materials don't meet current building regulations etc.?

[Tim Streater]

Don't see why. In California, earthquake damage is an explicit exclusion.

[S Viemeister]

As is flood damage, in New jersey.

[charles]

I'm pretty certain flood damage was an exclusion for some, but a government brought pressure to bear on the insurance companies to drop that exclusion.

[Andy Burns]

Ding!

Last time I changed insurance, I got £1m buildings + £50k contents (both over-valued) for much less than I could get specifically valued buildings insurance alone.

[Mike Barnes]

charles :

I don't see any justification for the government exerting pressure if, as in the case quoted above, the householder is confident of not being flooded so presumably doesn't actually want flood insurance.

[harry]

try to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of =

500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

not recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds= fair enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim t= he excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it wa= s originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down= the drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards ov= er insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

to pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit= of! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

willing to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now tr= ying to screw us over with this new scam??

Often the one size fits all is often cheapest because it saves all the buggering about on their part, time on the telephone etc.

You only know how good insurance is when you try to claim. That is the real bugger.

[harry]

y try to steer you

The newer methods are invariably cheaper than the old. Who wants a new house built to Victorian standards anyway?

[harry]

try to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of =

500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

not recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds= fair enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim t= he excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it wa= s originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down= the drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards ov= er insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

to pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit= of! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

willing to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now tr= ying to screw us over with this new scam??

The biggest factor is have you claimed in the past and if so what, how, how much etc.

[tim.....]

which is why the government underwrite it

But the UK government don't underwrite flood risks

tim

[Man at B&Q]

try to steer you towards a "blanket" policy with an overall sum insured of =

500,000 pounds, even if your house is worth less than half that!

not recover enough from the insurer to put everything back in order. Sounds= fair enough, I think. However, if you are OVER insured, you cannot claim t= he excess sum insured to rebuild your house to a better standard than it wa= s originally, so you're basically just throwing valuable premium money down= the drain for nothing! The fact that the insurer is pushing you towards ov= er insuring no assistance to you in law in the event of a claim.

to pay for 500,000 pounds worth of cover which I can never get the benefit= of! A quarter of a million pounds worth of cover is simply wasted...

willing to insure to the correct rebuild value only, or are they all now tr= ying to screw us over with this new scam??

Tell you what, I'll sell you a policy tailored to your exact needs, but the premium will be =A310k/yr.

FFS are people really so fecking thick as to be unable to compare the policy cost ratyher than simply focus on the cover?

MBQ

[Man at B&Q]

y try to steer you

You rebuild it.

MBQ

[Dave Liquorice]

Which Victorian Standards? Insulation, no. Craftsmanship and pride in the finished work, yes.