"Norman Wells" wrote in message
news:c%Q4o.8541$806.1461@hurricane...
Tim Streater wrote:

Insurance only really works when risks are fairly low. So if 1 in
10,000 houses burns down each year, and the average house is worth
say ?250k, everyone pays ?25/year in fire insurance (plus a bit
more). That means all 10,000 householders can cease to worry about
that particular risk.
That's what you're paying the premium for - so you don't have to
worry. It's for you to decide which risks you don't care about. To do
that in a sensible way, of course, you'll have to do a risk
assessment for each type of risk. That's what insurance companies do,
and they're quite good at it (they go bust if they're not). Better at
it than you are, at any rate.

Judging by the profits they make, they're much, much better at it than me,
to the extent of charging me possibly double what the risk actually is.
That's the gripe.

I just wonder if anyone here has actually received back from their house
insurance company more than they've paid out in premiums. There should be
some if the companies aren't rampantly profiteering on the back of
unjustified anxiety.

Not I, but I helped people who were paid a claim worth much 100 years'
premiums last
year. Claim was for damage to foundations, at least some of it caused by
third party negligence (interference with drainage arrangements)
--
FERGUS O'ROURKE
www.twitter.com/ubfid
www.irish-lawyer.com
(Not just law stuff)





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---