Insurance does not want to renew homeowners coverage

In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :

They didn't tell me they were canceling my auto. I found out by accident a month later (after I had driven 4000 miles without insurance)

Nothing new, about 15 years ago my mom's house had the same thing over an overgrown bush. I want to say that was nationwide, but I'm not sure.

SV reX said:

In reply to 06HHR (Forum Supporter) :

They didn't tell me they were canceling my auto. I found out by accident a month later (after I had driven 4000 miles without insurance)

Yikes!  That will get your license suspended here in Florida for lapsed insurance, even if it isn't your fault.  What they did really sux.

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SV reX :

State farm can eat it, they sold me the roadside emergency rider on my auto policy and then dropped me for excessive tows over an 18 month period.  No accidents, just towing for breakdowns (Beater Life).  At least they let me know before the policy ended, now GEICO gets to take my money. 

Don't worry, the berkeleying lizard will soon screw you, too.  I switched to Geico several years ago, and over that time my auto insurance rates doubled, with zero accidents or points.  I shopped around and now give my money to a local agent- about the same amount as I was paying to the lizard when I started with them years ago.  

pheller said:

Is there some way of determining what insurance company someone else uses? 

Because that could be a sly way of getting a junky neighbor to clean up their crap. 

 

There's usually codes you can cite for trash accumulation, etc.  Also, if said neighbor owns their home and doesn't need insurance since they have no mortgage, that trick won't work.  

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

I lack the courage to own a house without insurance on it.  It'd be very expensive to replace.

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

I lack the courage to own a house without insurance on it.  It'd be very expensive to replace.

I would end up in foreclosure in short order if I didn't have insurance. This is a little bit of an oversimplification, but most mortgages require it (as volvoclearinghouse mentioned/implied), and if you can't get it insured, the entire mortgage becomes due. Although in our situation, the house is hurting the value of the property... But that is irrelevant. 

In reply to mtn :

Correct, but his reply was to the following, so no mortgage to foreclose on  

Also, if said neighbor owns their home and doesn't need insurance since they have no mortgage

A tornado went through my neighborhood last year. Did massive damage to every house. 
 

It was an older lower income neighborhood. Most owners had been there for 30+ years, had no mortgage, and no insurance. Sure glad I wasn't them. 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

That's... NOT the only reason the have homeowners insurance.

Don't we all know that the insurance companies are our friend? I mean, they do everything for our benefit and just want to save us money. At least that's what I've been told lol.  On this forum lol.

Here's my story from some years ago:

I had a CJ7 that was basically what the Wrangler Rubicon became, lifted on 33" tires, lockers front and rear, lower-geared transfer case and Dana 44 axles, rocker protection. The whole lot. kinda weird how much the Rubicon was like my CJ, but with crooked springs. 

But I digress.  

It was ready for the road and I was getting full coverage. I called my state farm agent to add it to my policy (4 other cars and home-owners policies with them). They asked me to bring it up there for pics so I did. 
They inform me that they can't insure it because it had a winch, and that showed that I intended to use it off road. I told them that the 7 slots in the grill the the four letters on the side "J-E-E-P" show that I'm going to use it off road, the winch shows that I'm prepared for a safe recovery, if he need arises. They said it didn't matter, the winch said they can't insure. I then reminded them that if I'm off road at an approved ORV park they are covering the Jeep. They agreed. I then asked if I'm 1/2 way up a steep and muddy hill and can't make it to the top, would they rather I try to back the Jeep THEY are covering down that twisty, muddy, tree-lined hill, or would they rather I attach a cable to a large tree at the top and winch myself up in a controlled, and safe fashion.  
They kept being an insurance company, i.e. thoughtless and brainless. They said they won't cover it.

I said fine, but I want to talk to the agent before I left. I informed him of what they said, he agreed with them. I said "ok, I get it. You have two choices, write this policy today with the Jeep as it sits, or you can cancel my other 5 policies as I drive off this lot". They wrote the policy. I found a new company a while later.  

Insurance companies are crooks that are legally protected.

Oh, joy, this thread again.  :rolleyes:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SV reX :

State farm can eat it, they sold me the roadside emergency rider on my auto policy and then dropped me for excessive tows over an 18 month period.  No accidents, just towing for breakdowns (Beater Life).  At least they let me know before the policy ended, now GEICO gets to take my money. 

I have a AAA card just for that. I don't have insurance, just towing. 

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SV reX :

State farm can eat it, they sold me the roadside emergency rider on my auto policy and then dropped me for excessive tows over an 18 month period.  No accidents, just towing for breakdowns (Beater Life).  At least they let me know before the policy ended, now GEICO gets to take my money. 

I have a AAA card just for that. I don't have insurance, just towing. 

I was canceled by AAA for using my AAA towing benefits. Go figure.

Personally I find the commercial hijacking of our privacy a bit dystopian. It's easy to ignore when it's just a phone in your pocket, but when corporations are peering into your backyard from space and deciding how much to charge you for a product you legally cannot refuse, it's rather alarming. 

In reply to maschinenbau :

You can legally refuse to carry homeowners insurance.

It may be a condition of your mortgage - and it almost certainly is, so the lender can have some reasonable protection for their equity - but that is not a legal requirement.  Don't have a mortgage, or find a private lender who won't require you to have insurance (good luck with that - but it's still not a legal issue).

Having a car loan typically means you need full coverage, too, not just liability (liability is the only legal requirement for car insurance).  It is not unreasonable for the lender to want to protect their asset, which is their only way of recovering money if you default on the loan.

It's also not unreasonable to expect the property to be in a safe condition before it can be insured, since the insurance is for potential accidents that may occur there.

Now, we can discuss where that "safe condition" line is drawn; that's a valid point. But not when the initial assumption starts with the insurer having no right to review the property.

volvoclearinghouse said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SV reX :

State farm can eat it, they sold me the roadside emergency rider on my auto policy and then dropped me for excessive tows over an 18 month period.  No accidents, just towing for breakdowns (Beater Life).  At least they let me know before the policy ended, now GEICO gets to take my money. 

Don't worry, the berkeleying lizard will soon screw you, too.  I switched to Geico several years ago, and over that time my auto insurance rates doubled, with zero accidents or points.  I shopped around and now give my money to a local agent- about the same amount as I was paying to the lizard when I started with them years ago.  

Oh, they already are.  Similiar scenario to you except there is one accident, the other driver was at fault though.  Will more than likely switch to a new outfit in the coming year. 

Duke said:

In reply to maschinenbau :

It's also not unreasonable to expect the property to be in a safe condition before it can be insured, since the insurance is for potential accidents that may occur there.

Now, we can discuss where that "safe condition" line is drawn; that's a valid point. But not when the initial assumption starts with the insurer having no right to review the property.

Haven't seen anybody say or suggest that the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to review the property.

The issue seems to revolve around accuracy of that review. Using nothing but a satellite image of a property is just a quick and dirty approach. You're not going to get an accurate representation of the condition of the property or any subsequent risk by doing that.

If you're going to use software to flag certain places for further, in person inspection that's one thing. But to have it be the only decision making step is dumb. It seems like something that was implemented as a time and money saving concept, but probably doesn't come anywhere close to saving as much money as expected because it's not going to accurately judge the state of a property and things that are actual risks will be missed, while things like bushes seen from space cancel good policies.

maschinenbau said:

QuasiMofo (John Brown) said:

06HHR (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to SV reX :

Personally I find the commercial hijacking of our privacy a bit dystopian. It's easy to ignore when it's just a phone in your pocket, but when corporations are peering into your backyard from space and deciding how much to charge you for a product you legally cannot refuse, it's rather alarming. 

I'm old enough to remember when everyone was afraid of Orwell and Huxley's premonitions and assumed it would be the government providing this dystopian nightmare.  I don't recall anyone envisioning the insidious manner in which corporations and government would conspire together.  I think it was a blind spot on the part of the (traditional) left and the right.  The left assumed government was altruistic and would only work for the benefit of the governed and corporations were evil and not to be trusted, while the right figured the profit motivations of capitalism would work for the benefit of the customers, and the government was to be feared.  

Turns out they were both a little correct, a little wrong, and completely blindsided by the combined megamonster of corporation-government.  We've gone so far beyond the crude telescreens of Orwell and the fun little soma pills of Huxley that it would be comical, if we weren't living it.  

In reply to maschinenbau :

And all of us that tried to warn you literally decades ago were, and still often times are, called crackpots, loons, and conspiracy theorists. 

RevRico said:

In reply to maschinenbau :

And all of us that tried to warn you literally decades ago were, and still often times are, called crackpots, loons, and conspiracy theorists. 

I prefer the term "history buff".

"History buff"...

Thats a geriatric nudist, right? 

In reply to volvoclearinghouse :

The evil corporations came a bit later, and featured heavily in the Cyberpunk literary movement. 

SV reX said:

"History buff"...

 

Thats a geriatric nudist, right? 

Historically buff. 

STM317 said:

Haven't seen anybody say or suggest that the insurance company shouldn't be allowed to review the property.

My mistake, I must have misunderstood.  It seemed like some people were saying it wasn't the insurance company's business what was on their property.