On Friday, July 31, 2015 at 12:15:49 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Sat, 25 Jul 2015 09:00:38 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, July 25, 2015 at 11:24:00 AM UTC-4, Mayayana wrote:
| Interesting. Contrast that with car insurance, where one is insured
| even for negligence (in fact most injury and damage is caused by
| negligence).
|
You're insured for damage, not negligence. If
an accident is your fault you could be sued by
others or arrested.

The fact that you can be sued or arrested has nothing
to do with his point, which is that with auto accidents,
you're covered even though it was your negligence that
is the cause of the accident. You are similarly covered
for most negligence in the case of homeowner's insurance.
I've yet to hear of an insurance company that won't pay
a claim of a person tripping over the bucket you left
on the sidewalk or when you failed to clear ice or where
you left a pot burning on the stove and forgot about it,
burning up the kitchen.

I wonder though, if insurance didn't pay for a homeowner's negligence,
if they woudl be less negnlgent.

With a car, if you're negligent, there's usually as much chance you'll
be hurt as that someone else will, but you don't even have to be present
when a lot of home negligence causes injuries to people.

We should ban home insurance for personal injury and make everyone pay
the consquences. ;-)


Ban personal injury for who? The neighbor who trips on the bucket you
left on the sidewalk? Or you, the homeowner, who trips over it?
AFAIK, homeowner's insurance already will only pay for the first
claim. AFAIK, they won't pay for your own injury.

If you want to say that they shouldn't pay for damage, like a fire,
resulting from leaving a stove unattended, then I think you better
think the consequences of such a policy through a bit.