Cubist
Member
- Messages
- 1,438
- Location
- Shropshire/Herefordshire Border
I do get heartily sick and tired of the largely fruitless and deeply irritating rigmarole come Home Insurance Renewal time. It's partially my own fault I know, after all, it was my choice to buy this pile of sticks and to keep it safe. But even so, what started as a grain of sand has developed into something more akin to a millstone than a pearl.
I speak of course of my annual search for alternative insurers and the examination of the minutiae of their fine print in efforts to weed out as many 'get out of jail free cards' as I possibly can. As well, of course, as understanding their new/latest interpretations of evolving building regulations in an effort to at least off-set the immediate term impacts by understanding what they deem to mean a 'Satisfactory' certification. This year, I had hoped, there would be none of that simply because so many of those decks have been cleared by the expenditure of treasure and toil in bygone times.
Surprisingly that turned out to be true. I have not had to immerse myself in legal speak, nor have I needed to hunt down my copy of the Actuaries Handbook for Dummies, nor have I had to test their arcane calculations to ascertain the trajectory of the cash out of my bank or back to theirs in the event of a claim.
Coo, almost none of that. Why, you ask?
Pardon the pun - 'Simples'. Most of them won't even provide a quote unless I spend an hour or so on the phone with one of their salespersons, always assuming of course that they do not claim 'Can't help you sorry' having gathered the bulk of the 'Fact Find Information' I provide over the phone and that I would have to verify in writing later, whilst avoiding every effort of theirs to close the deal or up-sell into the bargain. Ergo, much fewer quotes. There is of course the alternate reason that many of the providers of the required class of cover have 'retired' from the field on that basis that its just 'too' risky.
I know, I know, I'm not making it easy for them. Oak timber frame cottage, thatched roof, wood-burner driven central heating, no mains water, fire brigade miles away... ho hum.
That lot however I can cope with, and have now for many years. But what I can only describe as that fetid breath of something emanating from the rear end of a horse that gets right up my nose, year on year, is that deceptive little con trick the insurers play on us all 'The Re-build Cost Estimate!'
This twice damning travesty, purposely designed to get you going or coming, through either a reduced payout if you claim while 'under-insured' or through higher premiums if you 'over-insure' - always assuming they don't have 'claw-back' clauses in the event of a claim.
I've worked with actuaries. I have a pretty good understanding of how their minds work, I know that there will be any number of them that can, and probably have already, designed an algorithm that can calculate the probable re-buid cost of almost any domicile anywhere in the country with a high degree of accuracy AND the likelihood of it being partially or completely destroyed by almost any event; including AoG.
Rant over for another year - wheres me Blood Pressure Meds!
I speak of course of my annual search for alternative insurers and the examination of the minutiae of their fine print in efforts to weed out as many 'get out of jail free cards' as I possibly can. As well, of course, as understanding their new/latest interpretations of evolving building regulations in an effort to at least off-set the immediate term impacts by understanding what they deem to mean a 'Satisfactory' certification. This year, I had hoped, there would be none of that simply because so many of those decks have been cleared by the expenditure of treasure and toil in bygone times.
Surprisingly that turned out to be true. I have not had to immerse myself in legal speak, nor have I needed to hunt down my copy of the Actuaries Handbook for Dummies, nor have I had to test their arcane calculations to ascertain the trajectory of the cash out of my bank or back to theirs in the event of a claim.
Coo, almost none of that. Why, you ask?
Pardon the pun - 'Simples'. Most of them won't even provide a quote unless I spend an hour or so on the phone with one of their salespersons, always assuming of course that they do not claim 'Can't help you sorry' having gathered the bulk of the 'Fact Find Information' I provide over the phone and that I would have to verify in writing later, whilst avoiding every effort of theirs to close the deal or up-sell into the bargain. Ergo, much fewer quotes. There is of course the alternate reason that many of the providers of the required class of cover have 'retired' from the field on that basis that its just 'too' risky.
I know, I know, I'm not making it easy for them. Oak timber frame cottage, thatched roof, wood-burner driven central heating, no mains water, fire brigade miles away... ho hum.
That lot however I can cope with, and have now for many years. But what I can only describe as that fetid breath of something emanating from the rear end of a horse that gets right up my nose, year on year, is that deceptive little con trick the insurers play on us all 'The Re-build Cost Estimate!'
This twice damning travesty, purposely designed to get you going or coming, through either a reduced payout if you claim while 'under-insured' or through higher premiums if you 'over-insure' - always assuming they don't have 'claw-back' clauses in the event of a claim.
I've worked with actuaries. I have a pretty good understanding of how their minds work, I know that there will be any number of them that can, and probably have already, designed an algorithm that can calculate the probable re-buid cost of almost any domicile anywhere in the country with a high degree of accuracy AND the likelihood of it being partially or completely destroyed by almost any event; including AoG.
Rant over for another year - wheres me Blood Pressure Meds!