I can't find insurance any more!

stephenni1971

Hawking....

Will you sort yourself out as to what you are talking about here -

The OP was asking about HOME insurance

JS101 commented about DISABILITY being an issue, which it is not

You then make a comparison to MOTOR insurance

Cogito then mentions contingency and continuity for COMMERCIAL insurance




And you then roll the whole lot up into one massive load of b*****ks to try and justify some completely bonkers argument!

Love the way you slipped in the reference to the Maserati 500 - am I meant to be impressed or something? Hint... if you keep it in the box it will be worth more :-)

mattymoo

JS101 wrote: »

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.

You clearly know your stuff and obviously work in insurance - in an alternative universe.

Thatched roofs - check - high fire load.
Sunbeds - high pl risk due to burns but not normally a massive fire risk.
Pubs - public occupation, moral issues in some areas and financial problems.

Opticians. WTH? Probably one of the cheapest commercial risks to insure - very low risk in my experience.

cogito

This is why disabled smokers can have their excess reduced if they use a gas lighter and smoke with a long cigatette holder.

Brilliant. You should be on TV.

stephenni1971

God this is so much more fun than the usual posts... Hawking/JS101 please go on!!!!

JS101

i dont see what is so entertaining, i havent said anything factually incorrect and am applying reasoned logic to situations. If I use one in a wheelchair it is wrong, hearing and eyesight are other examples, storm for fire, i cant think of more examples to emphasise my point. Insurers DO take these things into consideration and are a rating factor, contrary to what was said earlier in the forum.

Mattymoo - opticians are regularly priced at the top end of the market, i learnt this when i was at cornhill several years ago now. Opticians are dangerous, in the event of a flood there is lots of expensive equipment on the premises, and many who visit will not be well equipped to adequately locate exits and rescue equipment. They cannot see so good; i cant believe you dont understand this.

Similarly with a fire because optrex is very flammable.

mattymoo

JS101 wrote: »

Mattymoo - opticians are regularly priced at the top end of the market, i learnt this when i was at cornhill several years ago now. Opticians are dangerous, in the event of a flood there is lots of expensive equipment on the premises, and many who visit will not be well equipped to adequately locate exits and rescue equipment. They cannot see so good; i cant believe you dont understand this.

Similarly with a fire because optrex is very flammable.

Firstly, Optrex is a water based non flammable solution. You would hardly want a flammable solvent near your eyes.

As for the users not being able to find exits or FEA, that is what the staff are for - or are the blind leading the blind.

Perhaps they need Gordon's Peripheral Vision.

Thank god I only deal in oil industry / nuclear and energy risks. Would hate to be writing business as hazardous as an opticians :rotfl:

stephenni1971

I've got it now.... this is an insurance based version of that classic Radio 4 quiz 'Mornington Crescent' isn't it? Spout some total drivel dressed up as sensible fact....



Arnos Grove perhaps?

( using the Warsaw Pact of 1984 rules with standard deviation applied )

dacouch

I like the way JS101 reffers to Gordon Browns perphiral vision, for someone who knows so much about Gordon Brown he should know this is a slightly silly statement...

JS101

Optrex has proven to be corrosive when mixed with significant amounts of oil, which can escape from pipes or cars parked at the opticians.

I do not wish to get involved in a debate on politics because I try to spend any free time productively and give financial / insurance advice. I dont know Gordon personally, although a friend used to hunt with him. However, I know that his insurers value his contributions as Chancellor as it reflects his cognitive approach to business.

Im not familiar with Mornington Crescent, steph.

mattymoo

JS101 wrote: »

Optrex has proven to be corrosive when mixed with significant amounts of oil, which can escape from pipes or cars parked at the opticians.

I'd be interested to see your evidence of that.
Here's mine - the material safety data sheet - http://www.rb-msds.com.au/uploadedFiles/pdf/Optrex%20Eye%20Wash-%20Drops-v1-D0159384.pdf

Non-hazardous product. Over 85% of the product is purified water - highly corrosive indeed - not.