Quote:
Originally Posted by thesurgeon
I was an insurance broker for 15 years dealing with building and property insurance (amongst other stuff).
There is a common requirement to assume that the building is maintained properly to qualify for continued cover, and that any defects in construction be notified to the insurers before cover commences, otherwise - as you have found - your claim may be refused. Insurers often won't pay the bill for something you should have done to maintain the property.
My advice to anyone is to keep your insurance company informed about your property's condition, be up front with them about it, if there's a problem they can inspect (if you like) and often give help before anything unfortunate happens.
BTW I doubt if having 45 people on a deck would be covered either, unless the insurers were informed about it's intended use otherwise from a 'normal' dwelling, which I presume they were charging for.
P.S. Sorry to hear about your injuries, and hope you get well soon.
|
so what youre saying is that insurance companies ate happy to take your money ever month but not bothered to come out and do an inspection and rely on the owner to tell them if something is wrong even if they may not be qualified to make that judgement. whatr if the owner lives in another state or country to where they own property?
it just sounds like a get out clause to me. the classic 'oh we didnt know', therefore its void argument. in the same way that they make people who have life insurance do health checks, is it not reasonable for these companies to send their inspectors out and validate the condition of the house?
in the meantime people like ralphie are paying a portion of their premium on something that was never insurable. sounds like the little guy is getting screwed over again.