wrote:
In article om,
says...

Either way, insurance companies can be parinoid that
someone will die.

Just telling you what I was told.

tom @ www.NoCostAds.com

WELL THINK ABOUT THIS! $100,000 policy perhaps 500 bucks.

lets imagine a house fire totaling building and thats common today few
are home during working hours......

after the company covers basic costs how many 500 buck policies does it
take to cover the replacement or major repair cost of a single house
fire?

realize that 500 bucks probably covers the structure and all
possesions.

probably 150 grand

Probably a bit more -- that $500 premium also includes Loss of Use
coverage to cover your costs to rent elsewhere while the house is being
rebuilt, it includes Separate Structures coverage for fences and
outbuildings. A standard homeowners policy with $100,000 of dwelling
coverage can cost the insurer $190,000 in payments for a total loss.

And that doesn't include their costs to investigate and settle the
claim. That can be a real ordeal, figuring out the value of every item
that was destroyed, investigating the cause of the loss, investigating
who might be responsible (faulty wiring work, defective appliance, etc.)

Overall, a total loss of a $100,000 house could easily cost the insurer
$200,000 or more. So yes, they do have an incentive to categorize risks
and decide whether your $100,000 house should cost $500 to insure, or
$750.

-- EXACTLY and people shop for lower premiums....

With car insurance why insure a repeat DUI customer whn lots of
regular safe drivers are available?

cover up K&T by saying you dont have it or disquising it by say getting
it out of basement? have fire they likely deny the claim.........