or will they find ways to deny the claims?
2007-10-24 10:39:15 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Business & Finance ➔ Insurance
This is a double sided question, seeing that the reason for the fires is yet to be announced. I recently saw that they believe that the current fires are arson related. In that case I believe that Home Owners Insurance should cover it, however that's not always the case.
As with most "insurance companies" in the USA, they are (sadly) built around trying to make it as hard as possible for you to claim something against them. And most companies state in their terms that "Acts of 'God'" are not covered in their policies.
There is also the fact that in areas where such damages are normal, you can be almost certain that such clauses are in your insurance manuals.
Take for instance the Katrina Disaster. Homeowners insurance generally doesn’t cover damages to properties and belongings due to flood waters from a hurricane. This is how the insurance companies copped-out of paying their policy holders in New Orleans.
On top of that getting disaster insurance for areas prone to those said disasters will cost more then they end up giving back.
2007-10-24 10:58:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Fire is a named peril under just about all policies.
The insurance companies will handle the fire losses per the language in their policies. Given the nature of the loss (total loss of everything) these losses will take longer to resolve than a simple roof claim. But the insurance companies will handle it as they are supposed to.
Katrina and flood damage is a completely different animal. The standard homeowners policy has specifically excluded flood for over 50 years. In order to have coverage for flood, you have to purchase a policy that is underwritten by the federal government. In Katrina. If you did not have a flood policy than the damage from the water (flood - weather or not driven by wind) then your homeowners policy did not cover.
Just like you can't drive a car with out collision coverage - hit a tree and then go see your neighborhood agent and buy collision after the fact - folks that had homes destroyed by fire will not be able to purchase a fire policy after the fact and flood victims can't wait until after the flood to get a policy.
That's the nature of insurance. You have to purchase it prior to the loss happening.
The job of an insurance company is to pay claims. Our job is to pay what we owe. If the damage is not covered by the policy then we do not owe it and we would deny the claim.
2007-10-24 12:38:32 · answer #2 · answered by Boots 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If someone has fire coverage, they have fire coverage. If you're wondering, will a flood policy deny payment for fire, yes, it will.
Just like during Katrina, the non-flood policies denied payment for flood.
Car insurance doesn't cover houses. House insurance doesn't cover workers comp. A workers comp policy isn't going to pay for fire damage to a building. If that's "finding ways to deny the claims", then it is.
2007-10-24 11:46:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think they will cover the claims. In the last fire, we had smoke damage on some items and State Farm took really good care of us.
I think a lot has to do with the company!
2007-10-24 10:47:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hey Gene Scott Star - you show me those policies that use the term "Act of God" to exclude coverage. In my experience I have yet to find one that does!! I know others that frequent this site will back me up on that.
Standard homeowners policies cover fire as a named peril. So yes they will be covered.
2007-10-24 14:00:25 · answer #5 · answered by mamatohaley+1 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
great question on the earthquake - are you beneficial they don't? maximum agencies won't disguise earthquake, by using fact it quite is comparable in scope to flood disadvantages - you're actually not likely to get ONE or 2 claims in a community, you will get hundreds, which makes it quite not person-friendly to cost wisely to conceal your losses. "surprisingly intense rates and copays" is relative. right here in Texas, it quite is not uncommon to verify a 5% or maybe 10% wind deductible on your coverage - equivalent to the copays you're speaking approximately on earthquake assurance. that's by using fact the probability of a loss is pretty intense. they could desire to have sufficient top rate to conceal the possibility in case of an excellent. area of proscribing the top rate, is having the coverage holder share in the loss with a copay.
2016-10-07 13:09:21 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just saw this on the news yes they will pay and they will also allow displacement money.
2007-10-24 11:16:25 · answer #7 · answered by what did you say 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋