Don't Invalidate Fire Insurance

Don't invalidate your fire insurance policy. I find this a very strange case but it just shows how important it is to read the small print as if you ignore the conditions of the policy your policy could be invalidated. In this case it was a condition of the FIRE insurance that the SECURITY Alarm was maintained and monitored. Times had been tough for the insured and he let the maintenance of the security alarm lapse and as the ARC had not been paid for 6 months they stopped monitoring the site. Vandals broke in and set fire to the factory. It was a furniture company and they incurred losses of over £750,000. The case went to the High Court, the judge had nothing but sympathy for the Directors of the Company and he took 'no pleasure' in ruling that as it was a condition of the combined insurance policy that alarm was to be monitored by an external firm, the Insurers did not have to meet the claim. There are often conditions attached to the insurance policies we take out which relate directly to the risk. We need to make sure our cars have valid MOTs in order not to invalidate the policy. We are required to notify the insurance company if we get a speeding fine but, to my mind oddly, you do not have to tell them if you decide to do the Speed Awareness Course rather than pay the fine. I have just come across a case, now in front of the insurance Ombudsman, where an insurance company voided the policy and returned all the premiums because the policy holder had unwittingly exceed the value of the 'valuables' within their contents insurance. They had insured the contents of their house for £60,000 but there was a clause stating that the value of the valuables should not exceed 66% of this. They had to rush their daughter to hospital, and while they were out the thieves struck taking goods and damaging the property to the value of £70,000. When assessing the claim the loss adjusters calculated that the value if the valuables in the house exceeded £40,000. Normally claims would be 'averaged' to reflect the under insurance, but the insurance company in this case argued that the under insurance voided the policy. As I said this case is in front of the ombudsman as I write. Back to case in hand where a fire insurance claim was dismissed as a security alarm and monitoring were allowed to lapse. Clients of ours run a hotel and there is someone on reception all the time so if the fire alarm is activated there was always someone on duty to respond. We came round to the time when the annual contract with the ARC [monitoring station] needed to be renewed. The Hotel Manger wanted to cancel it as it was considered an unnecessary expense. I said I agreed but asked him to check with his insurers to make sure they had no objections. The Insurers confirmed; monitoring was a condition of the policy. Often with in the insurance policy there is a clause that the fire alarm is maintained in accordance with British Standards. It would be interesting to know whether a similar claim has been dismissed as the Fire Alarm has not been adequately maintained. Firecall Ltd Protecting People and Property From Fire By David Shepherd-Cross

How Much Influence Do Insurance Companies Have in Our Lives?

Responsible people when purchasing a home, car, business, or want to prepare financially for the future obtaining some kind of insurance policies. On the other hand trying registering a car or purchasing a home having a mortgage without insurance, would not be permitted by law. I can't think of any other for profit industry that has the power in getting our governments to make life changing legislature. Here is why I think they're able to accomplish controlling many facets on what we can and cannot do? It all begins with people they hire called actuaries, they assess risk factors in people's lives. Then those statistics determine our insurance costs. As an example an eighteen year old male, living in a major city, driving a Honda Civic will pay a small fortune with their car insurance. They have determined males of that age have more accidents, the chances for theft is higher in a big city, and there are many Honda Civics out there meaning more claims. Still using driving, I agree that wearing a seatbelt can save a person's life in an accident, but up until the last few decades it wasn't a law, but an option. I presume back then the insurance companies figured-out that if they go to the government showing statistics, they could get a law passed where everyone was required to wear a seatbelt which they did. As I mentioned above they are all about profit, not as much about our safety as they would like us to believe. Just think by having had the government put in place a seatbelt law how much money did they save in claims. The government is not innocent here either, again they pitched safety, but made some serious revenues from ticketing those not wearing seatbelts. There were many stubborn people in those days who opposed the law and paid a hefty price. The thing is when it comes to making a premium price they can do what they want, but when the risk factor is high, out of their control, then enlisting the government to make laws for them are perfect. Let's face it the easiest way to get people to buy into a trip is through fear! I know this might be a taboo subject for most, but smoking is another avenue where the risk factor for insurance companies paying-out was higher than those who didn't. However being a legal substance for those of the age of majority, how would they reduce their risk factors in medical policies? Again recruit the governments, use the medical communities, and scare the hell out of the general population that smoking will kill them. Obviously smoking is terrible for one's health, but again I veer back to it being a legal product. However once the campaign against smoking got steam where people bought-in, they made and enforced laws preventing smoking in certain areas, eventually all public and work places. Remember this is all about our safety and health. With that said how much money are insurance companies saving on claims from smokers? Let's not forget our government highly taxing cigarettes to discourage us from using them. It great knowing that our government and insurance companies are simply nice folks watching-out for our well-being! Right! No motive just kindness and consideration for all! What a great world we live in! I have no doubt the actuaries determined that work places weren't safe enough, so that made insurance companies more vulnerable for payouts from workers and customers getting injured. How much more not sure, but they as usual enlisted the government to change the work place safety laws, all under the owners expense. The truth is again insurance companies are businesses, if someone makes a claim with all the laws in place, companies following certain set procedures, they have a better chance of not paying-out. The government is also as usual gets a piece of action too, if businesses don't comply they receive hefty fines. So again is it about our safety or their money? In conclusion I have not doubt that the insurance companies have a nice effect in regulating our country, and huge influence in how we live our lives!