California is #@%^ed up a lot!!! Because of Prop. 13 the government found a
loop hole that allows them to do that. When the market was hot, I would
always educate my customers on this loop hole. Guess what they would chose?
Some of these houses had gone up 1/2 million dollars and they were paying
taxes on 100,000.00 the original purchase price of the house. Can you
imagine the increase in taxes?
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
I keep hearing this, but I've been over my homeowner's policy (Texas HO-B)
pretty carefully and can't find a clause that lets them deny a claim based on
permitting and/or inspection. Do you have a reference for this?
There's more to insurance law than the words in the policy. You
really need to ask a lawyer versed in Texas insurance law this
question, however I suspect that you will find that there is by case
law or statute an exclusion for damage caused by gross negligence or
reckless or illegal conduct on the part of the policyholder. It
doesn't say in the policy that there is an exclusion for an arson fire
in which the policyholder was the arsonist, but do you really think
that they'd pay off on that? Homeowner-conducted repairs that were
not done in accordance with the law are less clear cut but they give
the insurance company wiggle room.
Which is why I asked for a reference. This insurance threat has been endlessly
repeated on Usenet, but I've never seen any authoritative source. I'd love to
settle the issue one way or the other. -- Doug
I'm not seeing anyone getting angry. I'm seeing individuals asking
for a reference to back up a statement. I've heard the same statement
a number of times, have asked for a reference myself and have never
been offered one or ever seen a case that backs up the statement.
It seems to be a popular troll for scaring people into thinking
insurance, warranties, etc. are not going to protect them.
Had a plumbing failure that caused a great deal of water damage
several houses ago. There was no way to ascertain whether the failed
plumbing was original or add on and whether if add on, was covered by
permit and inspected. Insurance adjuster never mentioned it, just
processed the claim. As was the case the repair to the plumbing
($50), was not covered, but the damage, several thousand, was.
An anecdotal sample of one.
No, it's for scaring people into dotting their "i"s and crossing their
"t"s so that if something does go wrong their asses are covered. What
objection do you have to doing this? Is the 25 bucks or whatever for
a permit going to mean the difference between survival and starvation
for you? Did a building inspector rape your cat?
If permits are required for "new work" and it wasn't on the original
approved plan then it's not covered.
Now suppose the damage had been several hundred thousand? Do you think
that they might have scrutinized the situation a bit more carefully?
Insurance companies are about profit, just like any other business.
It costs more on a small claim to contest the claim than it does to
pay it, even if the claim might be slightly questionable. If it's a
big claim and might be the result of something that the insurance
company is not required to cover then they may very well choose to
So I guess you made up your statement about the insurance being
invalidated in the spirt of protecting us from our foolishness.
That's the question that was presented to you. I (we) simply want to
know if you can quote reference or case for that statement. Can you?
Sure, but not deny the claim on the basis of a building permit or
inspection. Please quote case or reference.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.