Insurance company considering SHTF scenario?


PDA






Monkeyleg
August 31, 2004, 06:50 PM
I just received a notice from my business insurance company regarding a change in coverage. The new endorsement reads as follows:

"When this endorsement is attached to your policy, coverage is restricted to exclude bodily injury, property damage, or personal and advertising injury, however caused, arising, directy or indirectly, out of:

* war, including undeclared or civil war;
* warlike action by a military force; or
* insurrection, rebellion, revolution, usurped power, or action taken by governmental authority in hindering or defending against any of these"

Considering that insurance companies usually go to great lengths to try to avoid paying damages, I just wonder what their researchers are envisioning? Kerry's election? Osama Yo'Mama hitting again?

I guess it's time to load up all my AR mags. The threat or use of lethal force is now my only recourse for protecting my assets. :uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "Insurance company considering SHTF scenario?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hso
August 31, 2004, 07:44 PM
These are standard and the fact that your company is telling you this is no indication that you have anything to worry about. Their highlighting these limits on their coverage is more an outgrowth of the number of people shocked to find the damage and deaths from the 911 terrorist attacks were not covered by their insurance.

MyRoad
August 31, 2004, 07:51 PM
What did the old policy say? Every insurance policy I've ever had, from life, to liability, has has a clause excluding "acts of war". The definition of War is changing, and they are covering their butts.

They may have added some new language, like the part, "or action taken by governmental authority in hindering or defending against any of these" which implies that if you are on a hijacked airplane that is headed for the White House and a pair of U.S. fighter planes shoot you down, you are not insured, even though your death was "caused" by your government. (or, if a hijacked civilian plane shot down by the U.S. military crashes into your place of business, you are not insured)

sumpnz
August 31, 2004, 08:37 PM
So are any insurance companies providing the ability to, at extra cost no doubt, get coverage for such acts?

stealthmode
August 31, 2004, 08:41 PM
insurance companies suck.

years ago i hit a deer in my car and the insurance company didnt want to pay because they said it was an act of god so then i threatened to get an attorney then they paid.

R.H. Lee
August 31, 2004, 08:46 PM
Insurance companies only take bets (your premium dollars) they know they will win. They unilaterally write rules (contract language) to make that a certainty every time. Their largest expenditures are avoiding payment of claims.

Foreign Devil
August 31, 2004, 08:54 PM
They said that you hitting the deer was an act of God?

Gifted
August 31, 2004, 09:11 PM
So if a government authority prevents me from having the tools required to defend my life, and keep them with me, I'm not covered?

whm1974
August 31, 2004, 10:56 PM
Is it just me or is insurance a scam? Considering that the list of stuff insurance companys will not insure is getting longer and the fact insurance companys have dropped long time custamers for filing ONE claim I'm wondering if it is worth it to even have insurance.

-Bill

stealthmode
August 31, 2004, 11:58 PM
Foreign Devil

yup thats what they said that it was an act of god, like a flood or earthquake.

jsalcedo
September 1, 2004, 12:54 AM
I got the same clause in my insurance packet.

Pay $1100 per year for home insurance and they don't cover lots of things.

I'll have to buy riders for jewelry, guns, electronics, flood etc...

Tom Bri
September 1, 2004, 01:42 AM
The things to watch for in the fine print are the strange things. I lived in a town where all the insurance companies had a clause that limited damages for cave-ins. Seems a long time ago there was a coal mine that ran under the town, so at any time if it collapsed the town might disappear.

Roadkill Coyote
September 1, 2004, 05:58 AM
Insurance companies worry about two very scary SHTF scenarios
[list=1]
You stop sending them money, or

They have to actually pay out claims
[/list=1]
Many trees are sacrificed to produce offerings of fine print mojo designed to prevent these disasters. There are probably guys in the insurance biz that discuss what kind of exemption clause you would use to prevent claims in the event of a zombie attack. :D

sendec
September 1, 2004, 08:16 AM
Aspointed out, that's just legal boilerplate that they may be obligated to notify you of, like "truth in advertising" and HIPA.

Those of you who dislike insurance companies no doubt have some very valid reasons, but the only thing worse than them is to try to get by without insurance. Kind of a necessary evil

spacemanspiff
September 1, 2004, 02:40 PM
the gov't passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which does force all commercial insurance companies to OFFER coverage for terrorism.
the limits provided really wouldnt amount to much, but its something.

up here though, the number of insureds who accept the coverage is very small. i guess living out in nantucket, the threat of terrorism isnt seriously considered.

but insurance companies dont really know what kind of premium to charge. one company charges 5% of the property premium, subject to a $500 minimum, and 5% of the premium on other coverages.
Another company charges .002% of the property premiums, and .017 of liability premiums.

the rates vary from state to state, and they have a 3-tier system, i guess the tier 1 is in 'high-risk' states.

The war exclusion shown at the beginning of the thread is mandatory, and has only a few more legalese phrases than the standard exclusions have. war has always been excluded under the Commercial General Liability Coverage Form (CG0001), but that war exclusion has been given its own unique form for just about all types of coverages, from personal to commercial.

monkeyleg, is the form you recieved the CG2697? i bet it is.

geekWithA.45
September 1, 2004, 03:26 PM
Yup...standard stuff.

My old house had a clause disclaiming liability for

"the intentional or unintentional discharge of a nuclear weapon or device" :what:

When I asked my agent how much a rider to cover that contingency would cost, he just looked at me, and then went right ahead as if I hadn't spoken.

Lochaber
September 1, 2004, 04:03 PM
I'm am pleased to see how many people actually read their policies. Most folks don't even realize that Fido may be canceling their policy. A number of the major insurance companies now have "no dangerous dog" policies, but the definition of dangerous dog is not constant. I had to shop around to find a company that did not consider my dog dangerous (American Bulldog) and I had them put it in writing on the policy.

A lot of the big name companies prohibit PitBulls, German Shepards, Rotties, and one of them, I kid you not, Standard Poodles for reasons beyond my undestading. I know they are a big guard dog, but the are barkers not attack dogs!

Loch

2nd Amendment
September 1, 2004, 04:10 PM
I'd have to go hunt around for the stats(and I probably won't) but IIRC poodles are among the most prolific biters. You're much more likely to get gnawed on by a poodle than a pit. The poodle just won't do as much actual damage...which likely won't lessen a civil suit settlement anyway.

Zundfolge
September 1, 2004, 04:28 PM
the gov't passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, which does force all commercial insurance companies to OFFER coverage for terrorism.

Here's where government's "good intentions" pave that road to hell.

Before that law, many "acts of terrorism" would have been covered under your regular policy ... now because Big Brother requires them to offer terrorism coverage they can now move all damages committed by "acts of terrorism" out from under their old regular policies and under this new extra policy.

Now if the cops are chasing a vanload of "terrorists" and they swerve off the road and run into your house you aren't covered whereas you would have been before.


Watch the next step of putting other semi/non-political crimes/criminals under the banner of "terrorists" ... eventually we'll see "street gangs" labeled as terrorist groups so now your no longer covered when a gang banger steals your car, or now they have labeled the ELF as "terrorists" instead of simply "vandals".


This is the essence of Orwell's Newspeak

armoredman
September 1, 2004, 04:38 PM
Control the language, and you control thought and reality. This is why the Internet scares the pants off of them....
I will have to check my insurance policies...other than the policies issued by CZ and Mosin....

Zundfolge
September 1, 2004, 04:43 PM
Oh ... and one real big one (to keep this gun related) is the following word:

Regulated



(sorry for the hijack :uhoh: )

WhiteKnight
September 1, 2004, 05:58 PM
years ago i hit a deer in my car and the insurance company didnt want to pay because they said it was an act of god so then i threatened to get an attorney then they paid

My eldest cousin hit a deer and the company claimed it was an uninsured motorist. :scrutiny:

:mad:

JoeWang
September 1, 2004, 06:13 PM
The ins. company would have a hard time impressing a judge that 9/11 was

* war, including undeclared or civil war;
* warlike action by a military force; or
* insurrection, rebellion, revolution, usurped power, or action taken by governmental authority in hindering or defending against any of these"

Sure you'd have to wait 3 years to get your money, but they would lose. Terrorism is not war, it has not so far been conducted by military forces (with ranks, training, uniforms, etc.). Insurrection, rebellion and revolution are internally caused incidents.

Ins. isn't or shouldn't be a scam. Its about distributing the risk of a castrophe. Ins. co's make money and some lose money badly. Think of it as gambling, and the ins. co. is the house.

Preacherman
September 1, 2004, 06:32 PM
To give you an idea of how "helpful" insurance companies are, my Dad wanted to take out an insurance policy during World War II to give my Mom a bit of help in the event he was killed in action. The insurance industry was legally obliged to provide such coverage to servicemen (just as they are legally obliged to provide "terrorism coverage" today), but they took care of their risk by hiking the premiums to impossible levels. In Dad's case, for a policy benefit of a thousand pounds sterling, the premium would have been 500 pounds per annum! Based on their assessment of his life expectancy as an officer in the Royal Air Force, he declined the policy offer...

:fire:

spacemanspiff
September 1, 2004, 06:40 PM
each policy we send out has a 'disclosure statement' on which the insured signs, and indicates if they accept or reject such coverage.

following is not the entire TRIA wording, but in part:

you are hereby notified, blah blah blah, that you now have the right to purchase insurance coverage for losses arising out of an Act of Terrorism, which is defined in the Act as an act certified by the Secretary of the Treasury (i) to be an act of terrorism, (ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to (a) human life, (b) property or (c) infrastructure, (iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside of the US in case of an air carrier or vessel or the premises of a US Mission and (iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals acting on behalf of any foreign person or foreign interest, as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the US or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the US Gov't b coercion. (talk about a runon sentence! )
blah blah blah, there is a $100 billion dollar annual cap on al losses resulting from Acts of Terrorism above which no coverage will be provided under this policy and under the Act unless Congress makes some other determination.


sometimes the uninformed think that if they accept the terrorism coverage, the War Exclusion is null and void. :rolleyes:

Hugo
September 1, 2004, 09:16 PM
I've noticed AAA has car and house insurance. Does anyone know if they are firearms friendly or crappy like State Farm or Allstate or others have been known to be. Are any Insurance companies recommended by the NRA? Hmmm, maybe the NRA should start selling homeowners and renters insurance? Heh, NRA auto insurance.... Not just a pistol anymore! :)

Lochaber
September 1, 2004, 09:54 PM
I'd have to go hunt around for the stats(and I probably won't) but IIRC poodles are among the most prolific biters. You're much more likely to get gnawed on by a poodle than a pit. The poodle just won't do as much actual damage...which likely won't lessen a civil suit settlement anyway.

The little poodles are mean. These guys listed standard poodles which are a much nicer breed with a better temperament:

70lb poofs (http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/standardpoodle.htm)

Loch

Firethorn
September 2, 2004, 09:39 AM
Yeah, little poodles to tend to like to chomp. I wonder if one of the ancestors for the inbreed breed was psychotic?

Of all the dogs I've known, most were nice. The bulldogs were the nicest most laid back I knew. I knew of one that tolerated her family's baby chewing on her, grabbing folds of skin and yanking, and crawling all over her. If it got too bad, she'd just start licking the kid.

So what's their definition of dangerous? Dogs capable of harm, or likely to cause harm? A bulldog is capable of causing harm, but they've been bred to be generally so laid back that I don't hear of too many attacks. Pit Bulls are a different story, though. Heck, Boston Terriers dropped the bull from "Boston Bull Terriers", because of the notion that "Bull Terriers" are vicious. You could be robbing my parents house and all their dogs would do would be beg for snacks and pets.

If you enjoyed reading about "Insurance company considering SHTF scenario?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!