Not a chance. The insurance industry is raking in too much money and they have the politicians in their back pocket. I'm curious, how do you attribute global warming to no longer needing insurance?
2007-10-18 05:12:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Laredo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The cost to the insurance companies for terrorism is not that high.
Global warming, now thats a different matter. Policies will just change and premiums will go up, but that's only if you belive the hype about global warming.
2007-10-18 05:09:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Marky 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I areas of high crime they are already a thing of the past, the premiums are either too high or the companies just don't want to offer them.
The vast flooding of the UK this last year has put many other homes in a similar situation, the insurance companies know they will be paying out every year so they've effectively walked away as soon as it's renewal time.
Maybe Insurance will become a privilege of the rich as premiums get higher and higher, or maybe there will be no cover for certain risks such as flooding or theft in those areas.
2007-10-18 05:16:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, first, you lack the definition of 'global warming.' is it 'man made global warming' or 'natural global warming.' assuming the question posed is man made global warming, the answer is no because man has caused no global warming. assuming the question posed is natural global warming, the answer would still be no because if the globe was naturally warming up, there would be more prosperity throughout the world, therefore nobody would be mad about it. terrorism will always occur, primarily because there are people out there being taught and indoctrinated that the only way to get what others have is lie, cheat, steal, and kill if necessary to attain it. i believe the question posed should be rephrased into 'does terrorism cause man made global warming' simply based on the fact that the terrorists generally explode themselves, releasing those 'harmful vapors' into the atmosphere.
2016-05-23 08:40:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Interesting thought. And not necessarily a bad one. Insurance claims are something most of us never have to make thus losing all our invested money anyway. Without insurance policies would things generally cost as much? I know, I'm answering a question with a question.
My guess is that it wouldn't be surprising if insurance companies would drop a lot of categories but not go out of existance. Job preservation would be the incentive to stick around.
2007-10-18 05:11:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Book0602 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think they will become a thing of the past but they will change to reflect the new situations - for example, not cover water damage in certain areas perhaps or require security measures which they do not now require for your home, and certainly the policies will become more expensive!!
2007-10-18 05:11:28
·
answer #6
·
answered by Al B 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, because insurance disclaimers have always been in place for Acts of war, declared or undeclared; and Bad weather as Acts of God
And when a hurricane comes and pushes the ocean through your house in a storm surge - that it seems falls under "Flood Insurance" not hurricane insurance.
2007-10-18 05:24:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Just after 9/11 I worked for a security company who specialised in manned, commissionaires and keyholding. Pretty run of the mill stuff.
When their insurance premium came up for renewal it had doubled.
2007-10-18 05:14:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by firebobby 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
no
they just calculate the risks and charge enough for the policies
if you really want to know how likely something is to happen, look at the actuarial tables, or try to insure against it
is a house gonna fall into the ocean? try to insure it, etc.
2007-10-18 05:09:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
nope..on my last renewal they said the company had no plans to stop policies unless there was a threat of free roaming aardvarks smoking crack..oh jeez sorry again..pmsl
2007-10-18 19:15:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jools 2
·
0⤊
0⤋