I can't find insurance any more!

JS101

Mattymoo - thank god I generally deal with knowledgeable people in the industry and not those citing science to prove fact. what do you think the other 15% is made of? something akin to petrol i heard, its an explosive product.

Dan Thomas has piped down, obviously realising that JS 'the dolt' might not have been talking such 'bullcrap' as he thought. I just spoke to my friend working for a large insurer in London, he wrote a home policy this lunchtime and took into account the age of the owners when setting the premium. Textbooks will tell you that the aged will be at home longer hours and less a risk of theft, but he charged them a higher premium because he suspected dementia and they cannot be trusted with electrical goods.

mattymoo

Hamamelis water 13%
Boric acid 1.1%
Glycerin 1%
Borax 0.20%
Benzalkonium chloride solution 0.01%

- No, still not seeing the explosive element in there.

PS: I am a Property / Liability surveyor in the Lloyd's market (composite before that) so have a pretty good idea what I'm on about.

Benzalkonium chloride solution is corrosive when undiluted. At 0.01% by volume within Optrex, it is not an issue.

FuzzyMoose

JS101 wrote: »

Removal of expensive furniture will result the losses being kept to a minimum. Its like a 17 year old male driver, they will be more likely to crash... like one in a wheelchair being more likely to have to leave the expensive dvd player underwater.

The cost of the expensive dvd player is going to be NOTHING compared to the cost of housing a family during repairs, carpets, kitchen goods, drying the building out etc etc

mattymoo

JS101 wrote: »

I just spoke to my friend working for a large insurer in London, he wrote a home policy this lunchtime and took into account the age of the owners when setting the premium. Textbooks will tell you that the aged will be at home longer hours and less a risk of theft, but he charged them a higher premium because he suspected dementia and they cannot be trusted with electrical goods.

If your friend really did do that then I'm ashamed to be in the same industry as the pair of you. Have you ever heard of the Disability Discrimination Act?

Insurers must be fair and reasonable in their dealings.
Insurers may refuse to insure a disabled person or increase the premium charged compared to that charged to a non-disabled person, as long as they can justify their actions.
The insurer’s decision must be based on information or data relevant to the assessment of risk and that information or data must be from a source which it is reasonable to rely on.
Information or data can come from various sources, such as actuarial* or statistical data, medical research information, or a medical report about an individual from any reasonable source.
Information or data must be current.
Any decisions made on the basis of the information must be considered to be reasonable.
If an insurer has a ‘blanket’ policy covering, for example, epilepsy, they have to be able to justify this policy with regard to points 3 – 6 above. (In reality, it is unlikely that they would be able to do so.)

http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/ddaandinsurance.html

You say he only suspected, where was his evidence of dementia. What happened to TCF?

stephenni1971

Mattymoo its a wind up!

JS101

why do you persist in saying its a joke rather than acknowledge im right, ive just told you how a colleague has dealt with it in a new household contents policy this very afternoon. An underwriter will use his own nous when these facts become available. This is fact Dan Thomas, not 'bullcrap'.

mattymoo - things like TCF are there for guidelines, we all know in reality that common sense will prevail. It is akin to cycling on the pavement, good in theory, in reality we all turn a blind eye. His company know that there is a significant risk there and set premium accordingly. It IS a rating factor and thats my conclusive evidence.

Also, i see that you maybe right about optrex, i may have got that one wrong, i think I meant lighter fluid or white spirit. You might be right about an opticians on a fire basis, a better example would therefore be a newsagent or repair garage.

mattymoo

JS101 wrote: »

ive just told you how a colleague has dealt with it in a new household contents policy this very afternoon. An underwriter will use his own nous when these facts become available. This is fact Dan Thomas, not 'bullcrap'.

JS101 wrote: »

he charged them a higher premium because he suspected dementia and they cannot be trusted with electrical goods.

Which is it?

JS101

you do focus very heavily on individual words dont you, i take it as confirmation that i ahve finally got through.

in answer; he was processing their new business on the telephone and suspected dementia, or senile and cantankerous at best.

JS101

Optrex - i was wrong, i realise now. i mistook it for white spirit.

Rating factor - I'm right. Ive seen nothing from you Dan or anyone else to suggest differently. Your advice is no more use than mine, its your opinion which you believe to be fact. My advice, i believe to be fact and the readers will be given lots of information.

Dan - Its your tone and language I dont like, your opinion and vote counts for no more than mine, your cyber swagger makes you look foolish.

FuzzyMoose

JS101 wrote: »

Mattymoo - thank god I generally deal with knowledgeable people in the industry and not those citing science to prove fact. what do you think the other 15% is made of? something akin to petrol i heard, its an explosive product.

LOL funniest thing I have read in a while :rotfl:

If I wasn't in awe of JS101's trolling skills I would be calling him a moron, as it is, well done:T