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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.This thread is a very good argument for making house insurance a legal requirement for the owner.
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?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.
Do you know that you are liable for you neighbour's loss if you are at fault (obviously if it was accidental only)?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.
You claim against your own policy. If your insurers believe they can recoup some money from another party, they will do so.Do you claim against your own insurance even if someone else was liable?
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.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.
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.
Hi BrendanThis 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
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.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.
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?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
For the last while I've been financially de-cluttering and this has mainly involved cancelling various forms of insurance / security for future products
Sensible and cautious people rarely if ever stray into bonkers territory.I'm a fairly sensible and cautious person (but who has done lots of bonkers things).
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.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.
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.Sensible and cautious people rarely if ever stray into bonkers territory.
I doubt that such a requirement ever becomes law in Ireland.This thread is a very good argument for making house insurance a legal requirement for the owner.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?