Doing without House Insurance

T McGibney said:
The problem with this attitude is any impression out there that house insurance is somehow optional stands to wreak devastating and life-changing financial consequences on anyone sufficiently optimistic, naive or desperate to pay any heed to it. And the downstream results of any such devastation inevitably falls upon others.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Your house burning down or whatever may be low risk but it's extremely high impact and, as such, practically essential to insure for.
 
Eireann said:
Does house insurance generally operate by you claiming against your own insurance for anything that happens to you, i.e. it's standalone, you are protected against your losses and any liability to 3rd parties, or:

Does it work, as with car insurance, where the victim's losses are covered by the offender's insurance, i.e. 3rd parties are covered by the your insurance and you can likewise claim others for you losses.
Click to expand...
Eireann said:
You're saying that if an accidental fire happened in my house (i.e. not leaving a heater going in the bathroom, say a wiring fault or faulty fusebox, that I couldn't have known about, so it not neglience) then a 3rd party could claim against me for the costs involved. This makes perfect sense to me. I then, if I had insurance, would use this to protect myself and if I didn't have insurance than I would be followed personally.
Click to expand...
 
Hi, is there anybody who has made a serious claim, or has house insurance industry knowledge:

1. Do you claim against your own insurance even if someone else was liable?
or
2. Do you claim against the liable persons insurance, if you're a 3rd party and at a loss?
Dr Strangelove said:
This thread is a very good argument for making house insurance a legal requirement for the owner.
Click to expand...
So you also believe at present you claim against someone else's insurance for your loss as another person said? I had thought that you have to claim against your own insurance.
 
thedaddyman said:
There is no black and white answer to your question as to what is and isn't covered by a policy as it will vary per policy and supplier. If your broker can't answer the question then you should go direct to the insurer. For example, my package, with Alianz, does not cover 3rd party contractors working in my house, hence I would have an expectation that if I bring a builder in and he falls off the roof, that his insurance cover will cover him and the onus is on me to check he has this in place.

However if my kid is having a sleepover and one of her friends has a slip and falls, she is covered under the visitor part of the policy.
Click to expand...
Do you know if your policy covers for damage to your neighbour's property, e.g. fire, water damage, etc. Or are you only liable for your own property and they must take responsibility for theirs?
GSheehy said:
You mean if you had no fire insurance cover, fire starts in your gaff, and your house was burnt to the ground, along with the one attached to yours, would you be liable for the rebuilding cost of the neighbours house too? Yes.

Plus, you'd have all the costs of the neighbours being rehoused somewhere else while it's being rebuilt. And, if any of them were injured or died, that's your liability too.
Click to expand...
Do you know that you are liable for you neighbour's loss if you are at fault (obviously if it was accidental only)?
 
Eireann said:
Do you claim against your own insurance even if someone else was liable?
Click to expand...
You claim against your own policy. If your insurers believe they can recoup some money from another party, they will do so.

Your insurer has access to a lot more professional / legal / investigators / assessors than you do.

Insurance saves you the headache of having to go it alone.

Its one thing to decide on ditching your health insurance, knowing there is a public service available (for all its faults) should you need it.

Its a whole other ball game to try and save €1 or €2 per day and take the risk of not only losing your home, but likely the single biggest asset you own.

By all means reduce your cover (not the Sum Insured) by ditching the padding, such as caravan, bikes, freezer, all risks. You could drop your contents cover, but I'd keep it, and perhaps up the excess instead.
 
DannyBoyD said:
You claim against your own policy. If your insurers believe they can recoup some money from another party, they will do so.

Your insurer has access to a lot more professional / legal / investigators / assessors than you do.

Insurance saves you the headache of having to go it alone.

Its one thing to decide on ditching your health insurance, knowing there is a public service available (for all its faults) should you need it.

Its a whole other ball game to try and save €1 or €2 per day and take the risk of not only losing your home, but likely the single biggest asset you own.

By all means reduce your cover (not the Sum Insured) by ditching the padding, such as caravan, bikes, freezer, all risks. You could drop your contents cover, but I'd keep it, and perhaps up the excess instead.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is very good information, do you know this for fact, i.e. that you claim against your own policy? Or, is there a possibility 3rd party claims from a neighbour property, i.e. the law, system, convention is you protect your own property and don't have a liability for other peoples property.

The reason I ask is not because I have an issue, it's that I want to know what my insurance does for me, so if I could claim against another as a 3rd party, then my own insurance does not provide much to me as I feel I'm unlikely to claiming against myself.

By the way I have in the past removed all things like you mention and raised the excess as high as I could, but you'll find that insurers will sometimes remove these possibilities, that you have to go back to a lower excess, I guess because they want to increase the premium and want to justify it or just maybe don't want to have oddball policies and try to keep every customer to similar options. In about 25 years I've never found an insurer would removed freezer (frozen food) cover and I used to ask, it's probably not worth there while going on with these kind of things.

Again, do you know for sure, it's self cover your risks, not 3rd party cover like others have stated?
 
ClubMan said:
Exactly. Your house burning down or whatever may be low risk but it's extremely high impact and, as such, practically essential to insure for.
Click to expand...

This is the key point.

If your house is burgled and they take everything, you can recover. So lots of people do without contents insurance.

But if your house burns down or is severely damaged in a storm or it damages someone else's house, you could lose everything.

So just buy buildings insurance which usually covers third party as well.

Your neighbour might have a fire which damages your house and they might not be insured, so you end up losing everything anyway.

Brendan
 
Have you tried asking an insurance if they will quote for house insurance with a very large excess. Say for instance 100k.

This if possible would reduce your insurance bill and limit your potential liability.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
This is the key point.

If your house is burgled and they take everything, you can recover. So lots of people do without contents insurance.

But if your house burns down or is severely damaged in a storm or it damages someone else's house, you could lose everything.

So just buy buildings insurance which usually covers third party as well.

Your neighbour might have a fire which damages your house and they might not be insured, so you end up losing everything anyway.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Hi Brendan

Thanks for the good points, you seem to imply there are two possibilities, that a person can claim as a 3rd party against an adjoining house, which I don't doubt, but then if that fails you can claim against your own policy, which I believe must be correct. How would the other persons insurers get out of their legal obligation if 3rd parties are insured, so that I would have to resort to claim against my own policy. They would have to break the law then, refuse to cover their obligation (of course the other house would have to be insured in the first place). This doesn't make sense.

I think I would have to claim against my own policy, as DannyBoyD said in the post before yours. Otherwise the whole thing doesn't make any sense, especially if the other person (the offender) did not have insurance. This is what I'm trying to confirm / understand, that essentially you cover you own risk, regardless of whose fault it is, at least in relation to property damage.
 
S class said:
Have you tried asking an insurance if they will quote for house insurance with a very large excess. Say for instance 100k.

This if possible would reduce your insurance bill and limit your potential liability.
Click to expand...
No, but I have managed to increase it to I think €3000, but a year or two later they took that option away again and I had no choice (with this insurer) but to go back to €500 or €1000. Also, insurers I think have a minimum premium for insurance or the time, paperwork, etc. would not be worth it. They would essentially be charging more you for less cover.
 
If your house is burned down by a fire in your next door neighbour's house, you will first of all claim against your own insurance and they will settle with you.

They will then claim against the next door neighbour's insurance if they are insured.

Insurance companies don't waste money on legal fees. If your neighbour is liable, his insurance company will settle with yours.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If your house is burned down by a fire in your next door neighbour's house, you will first of all claim against your own insurance and they will settle with you.

They will then claim against the next door neighbour's insurance if they are insured.

Insurance companies don't waste money on legal fees. If your neighbour is liable, his insurance company will settle with yours.

Brendan
Click to expand...
So this would also mean I wouldn't have a liability to my neighbour? i.e. It is upto them to have their own insurance?

Then if I were at fault, e.g. faulty wiring, and didn't have insurance could a neighbour or the insurance company follow me for compensation? Or is it up to each to insure their own, regardless of whose fault it is (as long as it was accidental / unforeseen, etc.).

This is what I'm trying to understand, not the apparent crazyiness of my question, where would one live, etc.
 
Hi, replying to your reply in my other thread:

People replying on my house insurance query are essentially saying I'm crazy, bonkers, irresponsible, etc. As I said earlier, I'm asking about money. Most people here seem to be coming down that I can claim against a 3rd party, I still am not convinced that is correct. If it is correct it means if I didn't have house insurance I could claim against others insurance (if they have it) if they cause damage to my property. I would have to take responsibility for my own property obviously and make sure not to damage anybody elses. I do this anyhow already but I cannot control other peoples behaviour, so if I were to cancel my house insurance most people believe I can claim against my neighbour if they cause me a loss, therefore that a lot of risk eliminated. As I said, if I take my own risks on myself, if my destroy my own house, I live with the loss. I do this sort of thing everyday, but granted the scale is different. If I write off my own car, I live with the loss, as I don't have comprehensive insurance. I don't have any form of income protection, etc. Like another poster said its about your attitude to risk, I would not like to lose my house, if its my fault, etc. then I will have to live with it. I'm not cancelling my House Insurance, at least for the moment, but based on replies (except for DannyBoyD and now Brendan) it's not as useful as I thought, because I thought you had to claim off your own insurance.
 
Eireann said:
For the last while I've been financially de-cluttering and this has mainly involved cancelling various forms of insurance / security for future products
Click to expand...

Have had a very quick read back over the thread and not being nosy but are doing this financial decluttering through necessity or just as a means of saving money? The stress attached to this type of cost saving must be terrible and not being disrespectful but that comes across in the train of thought displayed here.
 
Sue Ellen said:
Have had a very quick read back over the thread and not being nosy but are doing this financial decluttering through necessity or just as a means of saving money? The stress attached to this type of cost saving must be terrible and not being disrespectful but that comes across in the train of thought displayed here.
Click to expand...
It's not really necessary or to save money, but by cancelling a few insurance items I have saved money. My main motivation is to de-clutter from a lot this stuff.

It's not particularly stressful, but I have dealt with one company and a bank who were both slow, made mistakes and took a lot of contacting them, not receiving a reply, they were happy to do things incorrectly if I had let them get away with it. That was frustrating, but it not too strange.

How does my train of thought come accross?

I type quickly as I think, so I sometimes leave out a word which I only realise after I have sent the item. This is something should be more careful on.

On this thread I was looking to find answers to a financial question regarding insurance, most replies do not try to answer my questions, but rather say it is a ridiculous question. I don't think that is the case, so there is a lot of repeating / explaining my question to try and get to bottom of it, this might be what you're noticing. Even Brendan has given some fair points, but on one of the key points done a 180 degree in his next post, so I have been repeating myself alot I know.
 
Knuttell said:
Sensible and cautious people rarely if ever stray into bonkers territory.
Click to expand...
I am sensible and cautious in lots of ways, but I was kinda joking here, I for example have jumped out of an airplane a few times, which to many people would be bonkers.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
This thread is a very good argument for making house insurance a legal requirement for the owner.
Click to expand...
I doubt that such a requirement ever becomes law in Ireland.
No insurance company in this country offers an insurance for a house older than 100 years. How will you treat those folks?
 
I live in a 300 year old house, the insurance company did ask when it was last reroofed, rewired and replumbed before they offered insurance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top