General insurance question

[phoneJunky]

I recently had an argument with someone about insurance and after reading the fine print of my policy I still don't have proof that I am correct (Which I may not be by the way, but I feel I am right).

Okay, here is the scenario - You call one of the insurance companies and you give them all the information about you and your house or car etc. You specify that you don't have an alarm system in your house and they work out your risk profile accordingly and they state that they will need a certain excess to cover your claim if something might happen.

Now something happened - The other person said that the insurance company has the right to refuse you if you don't have adequate safety measures like an alarm system etc. My argument is that the insurance company knows that you don't have an alarm system and therefore needs to pay out the claim to the agreed percentage as your risk profile hasn't changed, I mean how could they insure you more because you don't have an alarm system and then refuse you afterwards? (In this scenario, your risk profile haven't changed).

And something related to this question - can a tenant hold a landlord responsible if there is a break-in at a place and it could be argued that there is not enough safety measures at the residence like a safety gate in front of the front door etc, and if so what is enough safety measures. I mean surely if you rent a place and you see there is no safety gate and still take the flat you know there is no front gate an can't hold the landlord accountable for your loss (This one I am less confident about, because I know nothing of this)?

 

[oober]

I have had claims pay out where there was no alarm installed in the house. Just don't leave the door open and unattended, then they won't pay out. Also if you say you have something like an alarm, gate, burglar bars and they find out that you don't you won't get payed.

On the second issue I agree that when you sign the contract it usually has some disclaimer clause to protect the landlord. Obviously if the building itself is not safe it's another matter.

 

[phoneJunky]

I have had claims pay out where there was no alarm installed in the house. Just don't leave the door open and unattended, then they won't pay out. Also if you say you have something like an alarm, gate, burglar bars and they find out that you don't you won't get payed.

On the second issue I agree that when you sign the contract it usually has some disclaimer clause to protect the landlord. Obviously if the building itself is not safe it's another matter.

On the first point - you do everything right and you also don't lie to them and you disclose your full situation.

On the second point, what happens if you don't have a contract?

 

[Bona Botse]

"i'd like comprehensive cover, i'm 21 and drive a ferrari"
"that'll be R50k per month"
"i'll take it"
"done, you are now covered"

3 months later, CRASH
"i'd like to claim"
"sorry, you were not covered because you are 21 and drive a ferrari"
":wtf:"

 

[oober]

On the first point - you do everything right and you also don't lie to them and you disclose your full situation.

On the second point, what happens if you don't have a contract?

Hmm if you don't have a contract then I think it could get sticky but if the owner can then prove that the premises are reasonably safe then I think he stands a better chance of defending himself. But courts are strange places so who knows...

 

[phoneJunky]

"i'd like comprehensive cover, i'm 21 and drive a ferrari"
"that'll be R50k per month"
"i'll take it"
"done, you are now covered"

3 months later, CRASH
"i'd like to claim"
"sorry, you were not covered because you are 21 and drive a ferrari"
":wtf:"

Did that actually happen?

Hmm if you don't have a contract then I think it could get sticky but if the owner can then prove that the premises are reasonably safe then I think he stands a better chance of defending himself. But courts are strange places so who knows...

Probably better to get contracts then.

 

[Bona Botse]

Did that actually happen?

no, i was just showing how silly it would be to refuse a claim when the person's risk profile was exactly as they stated. but you never know with these insurers...

 

[broken1]

This is why I prefer dealing with brokers then these direct marketing type places. Calls are recorded, sure, but suddenly the chicky on the phone makes a mistake on the system and come claim time, they can't find your recording.

 

[phoneJunky]

no, i was just showing how silly it would be to refuse a claim when the person's risk profile was exactly as they stated. but you never know with these insurers...

To me it is also silly, but this person has had some experience with insurance before - a house robbery and some car related stuff. I am thinking that it is probably because he moved and probably neglected to share something with the insurance or something along those lines.

 

[rabbiddog]

When you insure your house hold contence, the insurance will tell you if the security measures are inadequate.

My insurance stated that an alarm was only required by them if the value of my house hold contence was more than R500k. Others might differ.

 

[Imagine...]

Your policy will specify what security measures are required, whether for car or household or electronic equipment. You should always read these carefully. If the policy states something about security measures, follow it up and find out what the minimum they require is (the policy does not set out all of the details). If you don't have that in place, they may not pay out when they claim; you should have the policy endorsed to state that they accept the risk as is.
For example, my flat doesn't have the minimum security requirements of the insurer I'm with, so an endorsement on my policy states that it is satisfactory as is but that it will only pay out for loss of property where there is forcible entry since it does not meet their basic requirements (yes, the alternative is that they will state they'll accept as is but load an excess).

As to the second, you take it as is and assume the risk of your own property. Unless, for example, you asked and the landlord undertook to install the security gate but never got around to it, or other circumstances like that.

 

[noxibox]

Insurance policies are worded in such a way that they can refuse to pay for almost any reason. If they don't want to pay they'll look at the situation and find a reason, no matter how ridiculous.

In my experience brokers are typically a waste of time.