On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:33:52 +0100, Clive George
wrote:

On 30/07/2010 17:21, Norman Wells wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:
On 30/07/2010 16:35, Norman Wells wrote:
Invisible Man wrote:

Have you ever claimed on your house insurance, I wonder? Mine's just
come up for renewal and I can't recall ever making a claim in 35
years except one in 1990 for a relatively small amount of damage
caused by a couple of ridge tiles being dislodged by high winds.

I've made a couple of claims over the years. For one they insisted I
had to employ their plumber who came from 50 miles away, charged
accordingly then conveniently failed to fill in the correct forms so
they wouldn't pay out. Quel surprise.

A different lot paid out no hassle at all


snip

I've got buildings, because should something go wrong like a house fire,
I simply can't afford a full rebuild. The chance is very low, but I'm
prepared to take a loss on the bet because the potential loss of not
taking it is catastrophic.

Happened to a place I used to live (after I'd gone, officer!) AFAICR a
chip pan fire in a basement flat took out the entire building. It took
many years before they finally paid out and the landlord's daughter
finally got the place rebuilt. By then it was probably several
million. If they'd paid out promptly it would have been significantly
less.

I'll agree contents is closer to optional, but again, take the house
fire example : there's a lot of stuff to cover. I could probably start
again, but it would be very tight for a while.

In many places the Police are totally disinterested in things like
burglaries and will just tell you to claim on your insurance.

Contents also gets you third party insurance when out of your house,
which is potentially useful. My parents claimed on it for a bike crash I
caused when I was a kid.

Yes cheaper to extend my contents insurance to cover stuff like my
photographic gear than buy separate insurance. Sigma lenses that die
just out of warranty not covered however.