I can't find insurance any more!

JS101

I thank you for your advice Dan but what I meant was that one who is well equipped for a particular event will always be able to take action and reduce the risk better than one who is not.

This is why army drill sargeants, TA's and the prime minister pay less on their home insurance; they have the skills in these situations. At the outbreak of flood they will be equipped with the necessary skills to put the odds in their favour in a fight against storm. They would immediately write down a plan of attack and have tools & materials at the ready to create a dam. E.g: I am prepared myself, I have an old table in the garage and a collection of wigs in the closet for the gaps in doors and cat flap.

Perhaps first aiders and swimmers were a bad example, but the theory is there. Every insurer wants to reduce the risk. The dvd player was another bad example, i meant something the insurer would consider costly like an i-pod or George Foreman grill.

stephenni1971

JS101 wrote: »

i dont see what is discriminatory or dangerous.

JS101 wrote: »

i was commenting on disability as a rating factor

Spot the contradiction.

Disability is not and has not been a rating factor for home insurance.

Nor is the ability to swim 2 lengths of the local pool with a 42" plasma on your back.

You are talking nonsense, and in doing so were quite happy to trash the helpful , considered and relevant post of another board member.

stephenni1971

JS101 wrote: »

I thank you for your advice Dan but what I meant was that one who is well equipped for a particular event will always be able to take action and reduce the risk better than one who is not.

This is why army drill sargeants, TA's and the prime minister pay less on their home insurance; they have the skills in these situations. At the outbreak of flood they will be equipped with the necessary skills to put the odds in their favour in a fight against storm. They would immediately write down a plan of attack and have tools & materials at the ready to create a dam. E.g: I am prepared myself, I have an old table in the garage and a collection of wigs in the closet for the gaps in doors and cat flap.

Perhaps first aiders and swimmers were a bad example, but the theory is there. Every insurer wants to reduce the risk. The dvd player was another bad example, i meant something the insurer would consider costly like an i-pod or George Foreman grill.

My bold in comments above.

OK, OK, you got me. This is an extremely good wind up and you had me fooled for a while!

dacouch

Army drill sergeants do not get cheaper insurance, find me an insurance quote system that has anything other than Soldier or Commissioned Officer as an occupation. Therefore how would a drill sergeant get cheaper insurance as the Insurer would not be able to indentify them.

Out of interest a lot of Insurers find soldiers have more claims, they are especially prone to dropping televisions down stairs.

As Dan said some occupations have lower premiums because they are a lower moral hazard, not because they can carry more items out in the event of a flood. In fact the vast vast amount of a flood or escape of water claim is due to the damage the water does to the building not to the electrical goods.

Please take the OPs disability out of your future arguements as it has no bearing on the rating of the persons insurance rating

JS101

I wasnt talking about the OP's disability anyway, I was using an example of someone in a wheelchair... there was no mention of that at all. Apologies if this is not considered relevant.

However, the principle is the same. There are other examples I could have used, e.g: hard of hearing or poor eyesight. One who has poor eyesight will be an increased risk because they may not be able to see the faulty electronics hanging off the wall or the over-boiling vegetables on the stove.

It is well known that the prime minister pays less for his home insurance cover. You seem to be agreeing with me in your comments anyway; he is very unlikely to be putting in a fraudulent claim. Also, his insurers are confident because he is profficient in operations from his time spent as chancellor doing the budget. They know he is a strategical thinker and would be a good team leader in a call centre or rectifying a flood in the home.

I made no mention of swimming with plasma's on the back, thats just absurd. However, carrying whilst evacuating would be more sensible... like a member of the TA's.

Nor do I just think insurers deal with floods; its just that Home insurance is whats being discussed here, I'm using relevant examples on the same topic.

I know for a fact that insurers do take this information into consideration, if the information is available to them they will rate accordingly. Their preference for a policyholder is a drill sargeant, choreographer etc. They also pay less premium.

cogito

Great wind up, JS101. My candidate for troll of the year.

cogito

Contingency Planning and Business Continuity plans are becoming commonplace nowadays and are a requirement of Corporate Governance. Insurers reward good contingency planning as a favourable rating feature on Business Interruption covers and sometimes won't offer cover at all unless a plan is in place.

stephenni1971

Dan...

Take a deep breath and ... relax.

He's a troll.

Now just going to practice my fire drill before tea break...

cogito

HAWking = JS101.

JS101

The OP made no mention of being in a wheelchair, that was my example. I believed Dogbot to have given incorrect advice and rectified it accordingly. Ones mobility does act as a rating factor.

I cant believe you cant apply logic to the PM having reduced premium for his home insurance. It is commonly known and regarded by the sceptics to be a result of mates rates with Chubb. However, those in the know realise it is because his peripheral vision and lateral thinking is valued in the event of a storm.

I have only used flooding because it was an example like wheelchair, vision and hearing. I could have used another peril, like fire. One in a wheelchair is also likely to be an increased risk with a fire, especially if they are a smoker. If they make a mistake when igniting a cigarette then they would be unable to collect the stray match in time from the carpet. This is why disabled smokers can have their excess reduced if they use a gas lighter and smoke with a long cigatette holder.

I know that insurers have rating software which can identify this. Like hotspots across the country where crime is high, there are households where a fire is more of a risk. Obviously it is not just restricted to those with a disability but also the north west, thatched roofs, premises which sunbeds, opticians and pubs.