Insurer won't pay, may lose house.

vaio

Good?

I'd say it's better then good, for £10k he's got rid of a £140k debt and gets to keep his £200k house.

Thanks again for the update OP

[Deleted User]

Well, good for the OP, everyone else's home insurance just went up a little to cover the loss to the insurance company.

One_Five_Four

Mine included, it wasn't me that had the fire.

And you could say the same for every insurance claim ever made of course.

vaio

yep, that is sort of the point of insurance

nobbysn*ts

DELETED USER wrote:

Well, good for the OP, everyone else's home insurance just went up a little to cover the loss to the insurance company.

What planet are you on? You do know what you pay your premium for each year, or did you think it was some sort of charity you were donating to, and they just kept it all?

rs65

DELETED USER wrote:

Well, good for the OP, everyone else's home insurance just went up a little to cover the loss to the insurance company.

Not everyone - only those insured by that company. The homeowner will still have a significant claim on his record despite not being at fault for the fire.

On the bright side, anyone insured by his liability insurers haven't been affected.

I'm glad the OP's brother got this result - I certainly wouldn't grudge a quid or two extra on my premium since he got to keep his house.

[Deleted User]

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

What planet are you on? You do know what you pay your premium for each year, or did you think it was some sort of charity you were donating to, and they just kept it all?

Do you understand how insurance works? Well, actually it's obvious that you don't, so I'll explain it.

If his brother in law had paid then the insurance company would not have had to pay for the repairs out of their pot. As such they would be able to charge slightly lower premiums to everyone else as there would be over £100,000 more in there than there is now. They need to maintain a certain level to remain a viable insurance business.

I'm not trying to have a go at anyone here, I'm just really surprised that they would write off that amount of money.

rs65

DELETED USER wrote:

I'm not trying to have a go at anyone here, I'm just really surprised that they would write off that amount of money.

They have to consider the cost of getting the money and the likelihood of full or even partial recovery. They may be better off just walking away.

nobbysn*ts

DELETED USER wrote:

Do you understand how insurance works? Well, actually it's obvious that you don't, so I'll explain it.

If his brother in law had paid then the insurance company would not have had to pay for the repairs out of their pot. As such they would be able to charge slightly lower premiums to everyone else as there would be over £100,000 more in there than there is now. They need to maintain a certain level to remain a viable insurance business.

I'm not trying to have a go at anyone here, I'm just really surprised that they would write off that amount of money.

So you are trying to tell me you believe insurance is something you pay into, then if you make a claim, they should refuse, you should pay the claim yourself out of your own pocket, and it's good as next year you can pay in a bit less? And that's how you explain it, as we don't understand how it works? Bet your insurer loves you!

vaio

DELETED USER wrote:

Do you understand how insurance works? Well, actually it's obvious that you don't, so I'll explain it.

If his brother in law had paid then the insurance company would not have had to pay for the repairs out of their pot. As such they would be able to charge slightly lower premiums to everyone else as there would be over £100,000 more in there than there is now. They need to maintain a certain level to remain a viable insurance business.

I'm not trying to have a go at anyone here, I'm just really surprised that they would write off that amount of money.

The BiL had two assets, £10k cash and a share in a house jointly owned by him and his wife.

The insurers no doubt took the pragmatic view that £10k in the hand was better than trying to talk a judge into ordering the house to be sold plus the difficulties of disentangling the wife's share and possibly bad publicity of an insurer effectively making two OAP's homeless. (cue "sad" pictures and a full page spread in the Daily Fail)

This would need legal action and the BiL would no doubt have used the £10k cash to defend the action.

Cash is king and pragmatism rules in the world of insurers