|
|
|
Re: For Mary Jane & Lowell/Insurance Rates
|
Posted by Lowell on July 07, 2001 at 18:52:44:
For the record I am in favor of homeowners having earthquake insurance in areas where there is an earthquake hazard. BUT let me play devil's advocate for a moment while Petra, an insurance peddler is on the line. Why should I pay inflated rates of earthquake insurance when: 1) If an earthquake happens, there is no way the insurance company will be able to meet all it's claims, and either they will go bankrupt, and I will be left out in the cold, or they will find some reason not to pay my claim. 2) The government will bail me out with low-cost loans and emergency appropriations which in the long run will cost me a lot less than earthquake insurance, who knows I might even make a cent or two on it. Everybody knows that this is what happens every time there is a flood on the Mississippi or a hurricane in Florida. 3) Inflation has held at about 2% per year for the past 15 years. So, if the last adjustment Mary Jane had on her earthquake insurance was 15 years ago, a 30% increase would be reasonable. If that adjustment was made 3 years ago, if I were Mary Jane, I'd be asking questions too.
Follow Ups:
● Re: For Mary Jane & Lowell/Insurance Rates - Canie 20:05:50 - 7/7/2001 (8332) (2)
● Re: Answers For Lowell, Canie & Other Readers - Petra Challus 22:54:32 - 7/7/2001 (8338) (1)
● Re: Answers For Lowell, Canie & Other Readers - Lowell 23:04:43 - 7/7/2001 (8339) (0)
● Re: For Mary Jane & Lowell/Insurance Rates - Mary Jane 21:37:05 - 7/7/2001 (8336) (0)
|
|
|