After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company notified
that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to continue my
insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full exterior,
interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer from them as
to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:44:22 -0400, "Mike Shapp"
wrote:

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company notified
that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to continue my
insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full exterior,
interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer from them as
to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp

Hire an independent inspector to refute the company claims. Maybe from
the next town. I've used this approach with "appraisers"; when selling
a home.

--
Oren

"The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!"

I had one of these a couple of years ago. The issue was more of an
"inventory" one. They wanted to be sure that was they were insuring
was what they were insuring. Very cursory inspection -- size,layout,
general nature of building. That was it. However, when I moved
recently and placed insurance with the same company, they were an
utter PITA about dogs and firearms. Really IGNORANT questions. I got a
little upset, needless to say.

"Mike Shapp" wrote

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company
notified that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to
continue my insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full
exterior, interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer
from them as to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

It only happened to me once, and it was unannounced. Guy came
in, paced off the rooms for size, walked around the outside, and
then he was gone. Another thing they want to find out, are you using
the house as intended or are you exposing them to some huge risk by
running a day care or whatever out of your house. I can see their
point.

nancy

"professorpaul" wrote:

That was it. However, when I moved
recently and placed insurance with the same company, they were an
utter PITA about dogs and firearms.

IIRC, there's been a surge in lawsuits against homeowners who have dogs over
alleged attacks. Sounds like your company is trying to assess the risk that
you'll get sued and they'd have to defend against it.

Not sure why the firwrm sensitivity, but maybe they've had a problem there also.

On Apr 5, 6:46 pm, Rick Blaine wrote:
"professorpaul" wrote:
That was it. However, when I moved
recently and placed insurance with the same company, they were an
utter PITA about dogs and firearms.

IIRC, there's been a surge in lawsuits against homeowners who have dogs over
alleged attacks. Sounds like your company is trying to assess the risk that
you'll get sued and they'd have to defend against it.

Not sure why the firwrm sensitivity, but maybe they've had a problem there also.

They were really interested in what breed, if the dog bit, if it was
confined to the property, etc. I have a Lhasa Apso/Shih Tzu mix that
weighs out at 18#. As to the firearms, they were concerned if children
were in the house (mine are grown), what ones I had (I basically said
they were legal to have, and more than that, it was really none of
their business), and if they were secured, whatever that might mean to
them. BTW, the dog is used for pet therapy work in nursing homes.

On Apr 5, 7:25?pm, "professorpaul" wrote:
On Apr 5, 6:46 pm, Rick Blaine wrote:

"professorpaul" wrote:
That was it. However, when I moved
recently and placed insurance with the same company, they were an
utter PITA about dogs and firearms.

IIRC, there's been a surge in lawsuits against homeowners who have dogs over
alleged attacks. Sounds like your company is trying to assess the risk that
you'll get sued and they'd have to defend against it.

Not sure why the firwrm sensitivity, but maybe they've had a problem there also.

They were really interested in what breed, if the dog bit, if it was
confined to the property, etc. I have a Lhasa Apso/Shih Tzu mix that
weighs out at 18#. As to the firearms, they were concerned if children
were in the house (mine are grown), what ones I had (I basically said
they were legal to have, and more than that, it was really none of
their business), and if they were secured, whatever that might mean to
them. BTW, the dog is used for pet therapy work in nursing homes.

had another friend their roof needed replacing, they didnt have the
bucks homeowners cancelled. mortage company gave them forced place
insurance on structure only at 6 times cost of previous complete
coverage.

cat knocked over lamp caused bad fire 135,000 bucks damage to
structure NO COVERAGE FOR CONTENTS at all.

it was a very bad thing and took over 2 years for them to get back in
their home, most of their fire damaged belongings are still in storage
5 years later.

insurance companies used to look at homeowners as cash cow, but
hurricanes and lawsuits over dogs, trip and fall on bad sidewalks and
everyone suing has them nervous and fussy about who they
insure.........

On Apr 5, 5:43 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:12:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch wrote:

Charlie Morgan writes:

This is a unique, Frank Lloyd Wright inspired custom built house that
has been featured many times in major magazines. I didn't like the
idea of screwing with the asthetics of the original design.

Good for you. Keep fighting.

At this point I'm fighting to remain insured. I'm expecting to spend a few
hundred thousand on updates before I'm in compliance. I don't really have much
choice.

For such a house, you need a carrier out of the mainstream, or at
least a policy underwritten for the particular characteristics of the
house. Expecting adequate coverage for such a residence even if they
do underwrite it in case of loss is unreasonable -- average premiums
pay for average structures.

There are firms who do underwrite these sorts of things. Also, there
should be help from state and/or local agencies for historical
preservation which would be another first place to turn for sources
and other help.

Alternatively, given the money you're talking of spending, there's the
possibility to consider of putting that out and becoming self-insured.

"Mike Shapp" wrote in message
. ..
After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company
notified that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to
continue my insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full
exterior, interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer
from them as to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

They inspected both my house and cottage. Much of the cottage is pretty
amateurish (I have fixed the worst of it), so I was a little concerned
there. Their only comment was that I had to have my wood stove chimney
cleaned yearly (I told them I didn't.) I replied that I had two fires a
year, and it didn't need to be cleaned. That was the last I heard of it.

If you refuse to let them inspect they will certainly cancel your policy.
Good luck getting a new one without an inspection.

In article . com,
"professorpaul" wrote:
They were really interested in what breed, if the dog bit, if it was
confined to the property, etc. I have a Lhasa Apso/Shih Tzu mix that
weighs out at 18#. As to the firearms, they were concerned if children
were in the house (mine are grown), what ones I had (I basically said
they were legal to have, and more than that, it was really none of
their business), and if they were secured, whatever that might mean to
them. BTW, the dog is used for pet therapy work in nursing homes.

Note, however, that they probably aren't asking what kind of guns you
have just to be nosy. Presumably, they have analyzed claims payments,
and determined that people with one kind of gun cost them more than
people with another kind of gun. If you don't want to tell them what
kind you have, they might play it safe, and assume the kind that costs
them the most, and charge you accordingly.


--
--Tim Smith

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:10:42 -0400, "Nancy Young"
wrote:


"Mike Shapp" wrote

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company
notified that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to
continue my insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full
exterior, interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer
from them as to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

It only happened to me once, and it was unannounced. Guy came
in, paced off the rooms for size, walked around the outside, and
then he was gone. Another thing they want to find out, are you using
the house as intended or are you exposing them to some huge risk by
running a day care or whatever out of your house. I can see their
point.

What about if one is a packrat, has a messy array of boxes, house
painting supplies, extra furniture in the living room area, a rubber
raft yet to be fixed, tvs to be repaired, tv's on the stairs and the
basement landing to be repaired, a box of scrap metal and boxes of
scrap wood, a row of wardrobes with camping equipement, the whole
house stuffed. Magazines in stacks on the floor, a bicycle in each of
three rooms, etc. etc.

Do they refuse insurance for any of these reaasons?

nancy

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:44:22 -0400, "Mike Shapp"
wrote:

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company notified
that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to continue my
insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full exterior,
interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer from them as
to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp


That happened to me last year. My house is 60 years old so I was a
little worried but he liked everything, even the old wiring in the
basement. They are looking for hazards.

My sister was told last week by her insurance company to get rid of a
wood stove that she had never used that was too close to the wall and
not up to standand, and neighbours of hers were given one day to install
railing on their narrow front steps.

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:04:33 -0400, mm wrote:



What about if one is a packrat, has a messy array of boxes, house
painting supplies, extra furniture in the living room area, a rubber
raft yet to be fixed, tvs to be repaired, tv's on the stairs and the
basement landing to be repaired, a box of scrap metal and boxes of
scrap wood, a row of wardrobes with camping equipement, the whole
house stuffed. Magazines in stacks on the floor, a bicycle in each of
three rooms, etc. etc.

Do they refuse insurance for any of these reaasons?

nancy


I rent two rooms to students so my basement is full of boxes of books
and other junk. I tidied up a bit before the guy came so he could see
most of the walls, the pipes and the wires. He didn't seem to mind any
of that stuff. I'd keep stuff off the stairs though, that seems like
something they wouldn't like.

On Apr 6, 7:58�am, wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:04:33 -0400, mm wrote:

What about if one is a packrat, has a messy array of boxes, house
painting supplies, extra furniture in the living room area, a rubber
raft yet to be fixed, tvs to be repaired, tv's on the stairs and the
basement landing to be repaired, a box of scrap metal and boxes of
scrap wood, a row of wardrobes with camping equipement, the whole
house stuffed. *Magazines in stacks on the floor, a bicycle in each of
three rooms, etc. etc.

Do they refuse insurance for any of these reaasons?

nancy

I rent two rooms to students so my basement is full of boxes of books
and other junk. I tidied up a bit before the guy came so he could see
most of the walls, the pipes and the wires. * He didn't seem to mind any
of that stuff. I'd keep stuff off the stairs though, that seems like
something they wouldn't like.

be concerned with ANYTHING that could be a hazard espically a fire
hazard......

nice neat orderly stuff probably OK, looks like a bomb hit? NOT OK

inspection must be reported to the credit bureau equivalent of home
inspections.

once found not insurable no one else will take you.......

On Apr 6, 6:45 am, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 17:21:18 -0700, "dpb" wrote:





On Apr 5, 5:43 pm, Charlie Morgan wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:12:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch wrote:

Charlie Morgan writes:

This is a unique, Frank Lloyd Wright inspired custom built house that
has been featured many times in major magazines. I didn't like the
idea of screwing with the asthetics of the original design.

Good for you. Keep fighting.

At this point I'm fighting to remain insured. I'm expecting to spend a few
hundred thousand on updates before I'm in compliance. I don't really have much
choice.

For such a house, you need a carrier out of the mainstream, or at
least a policy underwritten for the particular characteristics of the
house. Expecting adequate coverage for such a residence even if they
do underwrite it in case of loss is unreasonable -- average premiums
pay for average structures.

Who said I was paying "average" premiums for an average house?

There are firms who do underwrite these sorts of things. Also, there
should be help from state and/or local agencies for historical
preservation which would be another first place to turn for sources
and other help.

Alternatively, given the money you're talking of spending, there's the
possibility to consider of putting that out and becoming self-insured.

The main issue for me is the liability insurance, which I really have to have.
The insurance companies only care about risk. If they don't feel it's safe to
THEIR standards, they really don't care. If someone gets severely injured on the
property, a few hundred thousand isn't going to cover it.

---

Unless there is something about the structure that is _extremely_
dangerous or a useage that makes risk inordinately high such as large,
frequent gatherings of people unfamiliar with the property at night
with "fall-off-the-deck-in-the-water" incidents likely or commercial-
like activity, it's hard to imagine the liability risk at a residence
being of such magnitude, especially if history of no claims over a
significant period of time with the same occupancy and use.

But, the point is there are specialty companies who deal with the odd
and unique and if the circumstances are as unusual as you describe,
going through the "ordinary" underwriters doesn't surprise me could be
a problem. I'm only suggesting considering alternatives to perhaps
stimulate a thought process of "out-of-the-box" problem-solving...

In article , Tim Smith
says...

In article . com,
"professorpaul" wrote:
They were really interested in what breed, if the dog bit, if it was
confined to the property, etc. I have a Lhasa Apso/Shih Tzu mix that
weighs out at 18#. As to the firearms, they were concerned if children
were in the house (mine are grown), what ones I had (I basically said
they were legal to have, and more than that, it was really none of
their business), and if they were secured, whatever that might mean to
them. BTW, the dog is used for pet therapy work in nursing homes.

Note, however, that they probably aren't asking what kind of guns you
have just to be nosy. Presumably, they have analyzed claims payments,
and determined that people with one kind of gun cost them more than
people with another kind of gun. If you don't want to tell them what
kind you have, they might play it safe, and assume the kind that costs
them the most, and charge you accordingly.


Yep. Even if there are no kids in the house, visitors can be an issue with
guns.

A lot of my extended family hunt and have hunting dogs - your dog isn't a
fighting breed, so just answer the questions (you *do* take safety precautions
with the guns, right?) and you'll be fine. Don't make problems for yourself.

Banty

On Apr 6, 9:53�am, Banty wrote:
In article , Tim Smith
says...







In article . com,
"professorpaul" wrote:
They were really interested in what breed, if the dog bit, if it was
confined to the property, etc. I have a Lhasa Apso/Shih Tzu mix that
weighs out at 18#. As to the firearms, they were concerned if children
were in the house (mine are grown), what ones I had (I basically said
they were legal to have, and more than that, it was really none of
their business), and if they were secured, whatever that might mean to
them. BTW, the dog is used for pet therapy work in nursing homes.

Note, however, that they probably aren't asking what kind of guns you
have just to be nosy. *Presumably, they have analyzed claims payments,
and determined that people with one kind of gun cost them more than
people with another kind of gun. *If you don't want to tell them what
kind you have, they might play it safe, and assume the kind that costs
them the most, and charge you accordingly.

Yep. *Even if there are no kids in the house, visitors can be an issue with
guns.

A lot of my extended family hunt and have hunting dogs - your dog isn't a
fighting breed, so just answer the questions (you *do* take safety precautions
with the guns, right?) and you'll be fine. *Don't make problems for yourself.

Banty- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think a federal law should be created, all guns MUST have trigger
locks in place at all times.

So a kid gets a unsecured gun and shoots someone, the gun owner should
do 5 years mandatory sentence and lose everything.

soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.

altogether preventable

In article . com, " wrote:

I think a federal law should be created, all guns MUST have trigger
locks in place at all times.

I'll tell you what -- you first. Put trigger locks on all your guns, then put
a sign in your front yard advising all and sundry that you have them in place.
Hope nobody ever breaks into your house.

So a kid gets a unsecured gun and shoots someone, the gun owner should
do 5 years mandatory sentence and lose everything.

Why only five?

soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.

Oddly enough, this wasn't really much of a problem forty, or a hundred, years
ago, when gun ownership was more common and widespread.

altogether preventable

Most easily preventable by education. The National Rifle Association is a
leader in this area, with their "Eddie the Eagle" safety program for
elementary-school kids. Eddie Eagle says, if you see a gun --
1) STOP! Don't touch it!
2) Leave the area.
3) Tell an adult.

As soon as my kids were old enough to understand, I made sure to tell them
that the guns are not toys, and never to be touched unsupervised -- and *also*
told them that *whenever* they got curious about how the guns worked, or
wanted to see or hold or touch one, all they needed to do was ask, and I'd get
one out of the [locked] cabinet so we could look at it *together*. That takes
the mystery out of it, and most of the allure of forbidden fruit, too. Once or
twice a year, they'd ask to look at them, and I always stopped whatever I was
doing to show them. My youngest (now nearly 16) still asks to look at the
handguns from time to time.

I further made a point of telling them that the guns on TV are not real guns,
and the guns in my cabinet *are* real guns, and real guns make things real
dead. I made sure they understood the difference, too, by taking them hunting
with me. Conveniently, where we lived at the time, we had a hay field right
outside the house, jamb full of rabbits. And they saw at a very early age
(like 3 or 4 years) that it's not like Elmer Fudd shooting Bugs Bunny: when
Dad shoots a rabbit, it's *dead*. It doesn't laugh, or jump up and ask "what's
up, Doc?". It's dead. It just lays there. And we pick it up, take it back to
the house, clean it, cut it up, cook it, and eat it.

It's all about education.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article , Doug Miller says...

In article . com,
" wrote:

I think a federal law should be created, all guns MUST have trigger
locks in place at all times.

I'll tell you what -- you first. Put trigger locks on all your guns, then put
a sign in your front yard advising all and sundry that you have them in place.
Hope nobody ever breaks into your house.

So a kid gets a unsecured gun and shoots someone, the gun owner should
do 5 years mandatory sentence and lose everything.

Why only five?

soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.

Oddly enough, this wasn't really much of a problem forty, or a hundred, years
ago, when gun ownership was more common and widespread.

Not to necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, but it *was* a problem
forty, or a hundred years ago. My family bible attests to that.

As well as others'. Gun accidents were common.

Banty

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:44:22 -0400, "Mike Shapp"
wrote:

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company notified
that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to continue my
insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full exterior,
interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer from them as
to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp


Home insurance is required in my mortgage and my old company tripled
prices so I spent a couple of months trying to find cheaper insurance.

I eventually found a new carrier but I now have a new appreciation of
having insurance available.

My point is that you should do what they say and be nice about it.
It will increase the value of your property as well as keep them from
cancelling your policy.

snip
What about if one is a packrat, has a messy array of boxes, house
painting supplies, extra furniture in the living room area, a rubber
raft yet to be fixed, tvs to be repaired, tv's on the stairs and the
basement landing to be repaired, a box of scrap metal and boxes of
scrap wood, a row of wardrobes with camping equipement, the whole
house stuffed. Magazines in stacks on the floor, a bicycle in each of
three rooms, etc. etc.

Do they refuse insurance for any of these reaasons?

nancy



Allstate did a driveby inspection of my house, saw moss on the roof, and
cancelled my policy.

There is a bit of a story - I was in the process of buying the house and
selected Allstate. Before we closed on the house, they did this. I told them
to kiss mine and went with Travellers. Travellers had no problem with the
moss, but suggested I remove it to protect the roof (which I did). They sent
out a local contractor who walked through the house, measured it, took
pictures, and left. No problems. I can't believe Allstate didn't so much as
give me the courtesy of a phone call or try to talk to me about it - they
flat cancelled the policy. Guess who I will never do business with again?

Anyone have a insurance company they would recommend for home owners
insurance? I've never had any claims, but I'm not sure I'm getting the best
deal with Travellers.

snip
My sister was told last week by her insurance company to get rid of a
wood stove that she had never used that was too close to the wall and
not up to standand, and neighbours of hers were given one day to install
railing on their narrow front steps.

I have a wood stove, but it's properly installed and I had the permit from
the installation, plus it's fairly new. My insurance company was OK with
that.

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:43:49 -0400, Charlie Morgan wrote:

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:12:17 -0500, Richard J Kinch wrote:

Charlie Morgan writes:

This is a unique, Frank Lloyd Wright inspired custom built house that
has been featured many times in major magazines. I didn't like the
idea of screwing with the asthetics of the original design.

Good for you. Keep fighting.

At this point I'm fighting to remain insured. I'm expecting to spend a few
hundred thousand on updates before I'm in compliance. I don't really have much
choice.

CWM


Put the few hundred thousand in CDs, and self-insure?

snip

I think a federal law should be created, all guns MUST have trigger
locks in place at all times.

Why do people look to the government to protect us? Why do we need more and
more laws? Why does the government need to be sticking their nose up my butt
everytime I turn around?

I agree that guns should be secured in some manner, but if you want the
government to get involved, then instead of creating more laws have them
spend the money educating people. Teach people, educate them, remind them,
about the dangers of unsecured guns. Show them how and where they can get
trigger guards. Give them some positive reinforcement, some incentive to get
one. Maybe even distribute them for a discount or for free. But in the end,
leave the people alone to choose for themselves.

soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.
altogether preventable

No, it's not really preventable. All the laws in the world won't get the
careless and the ignorant to comply. You can inflate government all you want
and pass all the laws you want, it still won't force people to lock their
guns at all times.

Laws don't work. Education does. Quit making laws and spend some money
education us instead.

In article , Banty wrote:
In article , Doug Miller says...
In article . com,
" wrote:
soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.

Oddly enough, this wasn't really much of a problem forty, or a hundred, years
ago, when gun ownership was more common and widespread.

Not to necessarily disagree with the rest of your post, but it *was* a problem
forty, or a hundred years ago. My family bible attests to that.

As well as others'. Gun accidents were common.

I didn't say it wasn't a problem _at_all_. And gun accidents were not as
common then as now.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 6, 12:35?pm, "Ook" Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at
zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam wrote:
snip

I think a federal law should be created, all guns MUST have trigger
locks in place at all times.

Why do people look to the government to protect us? Why do we need more and
more laws? Why does the government need to be sticking their nose up my butt
everytime I turn around?

I agree that guns should be secured in some manner, but if you want the
government to get involved, then instead of creating more laws have them
spend the money educating people. Teach people, educate them, remind them,
about the dangers of unsecured guns. Show them how and where they can get
trigger guards. Give them some positive reinforcement, some incentive to get
one. Maybe even distribute them for a discount or for free. But in the end,
leave the people alone to choose for themselves.

soon things would be much safer, no more crying grandpas on tv about
their grandchild going to jail after using their gun to kill a
neighbor kid by accident.
altogether preventable

No, it's not really preventable. All the laws in the world won't get the
careless and the ignorant to comply. You can inflate government all you want
and pass all the laws you want, it still won't force people to lock their
guns at all times.

Laws don't work. Education does. Quit making laws and spend some money
education us instead.

ahh at least grandpa will be crying cause HE is the one looking at 5
years in the slammer.

the problem is that losing your freedom and all your possesions is
better than all the training in the world.

bam your grandkid shot someone your in the slammer and your possesions
now all belong to the state, to pay for your improsiment. all
prisoners now work 12 on 12 off 7 days a week, no holidays in
prison........

once a few people go away gun locks would be common.

think about this a kid kills his friend.

the shooters life plus his families life will be mucked up probably
for a lifetime.

the family that had the death they be mucked up too.

the costs for medical, psych, and other associated costs goes on for a
lifetime.

gun locks and stiff sentences are cheap

"mm" wrote

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 18:10:42 -0400, "Nancy Young"
wrote:

It only happened to me once, and it was unannounced. Guy came
in, paced off the rooms for size, walked around the outside, and
then he was gone. Another thing they want to find out, are you using
the house as intended or are you exposing them to some huge risk by
running a day care or whatever out of your house. I can see their
point.

What about if one is a packrat, has a messy array of boxes, house
painting supplies, extra furniture in the living room area, a rubber
raft yet to be fixed, tvs to be repaired, tv's on the stairs and the
basement landing to be repaired, a box of scrap metal and boxes of
scrap wood, a row of wardrobes with camping equipement, the whole
house stuffed. Magazines in stacks on the floor, a bicycle in each of
three rooms, etc. etc.

Do they refuse insurance for any of these reaasons?

Heh, is that your house? Actually, it wouldn't surprise me at all
if that would get you cancelled. People die in houses like you
describe. All that combustible stuff and firefighters can't move
around to get to the fire, so it would be a total loss. If you were
an insurance company, would you risk whatever thousands of
dollars for a little premium money?

nancy

On Apr 6, 12:36 pm, " wrote:
On Apr 6, 12:35?pm, "Ook" Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at
....

....
think about this a kid kills his friend.

the shooters life plus his families life will be mucked up probably
for a lifetime.

the family that had the death they be mucked up too.

the costs for medical, psych, and other associated costs goes on for a
lifetime.

gun locks and stiff sentences are cheap- ...

The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Out of the number of gunshot deaths, the number of accidental of the
sort mentioned in this thread is absolutely miniscule. Not that the
loss of a kid isn't tragic, but overall to consider that there's any
great number of lives to be saved per year is absurd.

By far the most are by those with no respect for the law and with
weapons which, for a large part, aren't even owned legally. So, as
others have noted, all the laws in the world won't change anything
significant nor do the laws currently in place have any real impact
except on the law-abiding who aren't causing the problems in the first
place.

The only point in a law is to provide a mechanism by which the legal
system _can_ do something against the perpertrator on the rare chance
the perpertrator is actually caught.

As for the generic argument of more vs fewer accidents now as in the
past -- being as the US population is now over 300 M and was less than
200 M only 40-50 years ago, that numbers go up isn't at all
surprising. 100 years ago it was closer to 75 M.

"Ook" Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at zootal dot com delete the
Don't send me any freakin' spam wrote in message
Anyone have a insurance company they would recommend for home owners
insurance? I've never had any claims, but I'm not sure I'm getting the
best deal with Travellers.

I have The Hartford. Never had any inspections in 25 years in this house.
In fact, I've never had any inspections in 42 years of home ownership.

On Apr 6, 11:08 am, "Ook" Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at
zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam wrote:
snip
....
... a[n] insurance company ... recommend for home owners
insurance? ...

If you're not in a major metro area, check into your state Farm
Bureau. If you can qualify, they're typically at least reasonable
price-wise and service/coverage likely to be excellent. Limitations
in many locations are still takes sizable property as opposed
subdivision, but other areas have relaxed their requirements as state
insurance rules have changed to try to allow more competition...

In article ,
Banty wrote:

Yep. Even if there are no kids in the house, visitors can be an issue with
guns.

Statistically, swimming pools are 200x as dangerous as guns

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article
.com,
" wrote:

the problem is that losing your freedom and all your possesions is
better than all the training in the world.

bam your grandkid shot someone your in the slammer and your possesions
now all belong to the state, to pay for your improsiment. all
prisoners now work 12 on 12 off 7 days a week, no holidays in
prison........

once a few people go away gun locks would be common.

think about this a kid kills his friend.

the shooters life plus his families life will be mucked up probably
for a lifetime.

To be fair have the same penalty if a kid drowns in your swimming
pool, or falls off your roof while trying to jimmy your window

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
says...


Oddly enough, this wasn't really much of a problem forty, or a hundred, years
ago, when gun ownership was more common and widespread.

This has more to do with changing standards of legal liability than with
changes in the insurance business. A hundred years ago, few juries
would find you liable if some idiot shot himself with your gun.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

To be fair have the same penalty if a kid drowns in your swimming
pool, or falls off your roof while trying to jimmy your window


I would agree, same penalty if the owner had a pool and no fence, plus
the kid cant be attempting a illegal act at the time.

then again I think all new windows should have child proof screens, to
prevent kids from falling out windows.

In article
. com,
" wrote:

To be fair have the same penalty if a kid drowns in your swimming
pool, or falls off your roof while trying to jimmy your window


I would agree, same penalty if the owner had a pool and no fence, plus
the kid cant be attempting a illegal act at the time.

then again I think all new windows should have child proof screens, to
prevent kids from falling out windows.


When you make something foolproof, nature invents a bigger fool
Committees of Correspondence Web page: www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

When you make something foolproof, nature invents a bigger fool


Yeah I fix office machines for a living, despite my best efforts
people do dumb stuff

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:44:22 -0400, "Mike Shapp"
wrote:

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company notified
that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to continue my
insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full exterior,
interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer from them as
to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp




Just curious, did you verify it wasn't some scam by some local
inspector?

tom @ www.Consolidated-Loans.info

On 08 Apr 2007 10:19:46 GMT, RobertPatrick wrote:

Just Joshin wrote in
:

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:44:22 -0400, "Mike Shapp"
wrote:

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company
notified that they require a complete inspection of my house in order
to continue my insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a
full exterior, interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an
answer from them as to what would happen if they didn't like
something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this
experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp




Just curious, did you verify it wasn't some scam by some local
inspector?

tom @ www.Consolidated-Loans.info



....or a scam by criminals. Our town notified the residents not allow
anyone into their homes from people going door to door pretending to be
from the assessors office.


Oh my, that scarey. We have a standing rule for even the police in my
house. Unless it CLEARLY looks like an officer at the door (car,
uniform, etc) call our Non Emergency number is called first before
unlocking the door.

RCN is our cable company here, one day, I heard noises around my
house. I went out to see what was happening, and some person was
removing parts of my cable hook up on a Sunday afternoon. I
confronted the person, and quickly was addressed by three men saying
they had permission to do what they were doing, althought no one could
explain why they were stripping parts, but they were clear that I
would have NO problems if I agreed. I quickly retreated into my
house. After several phone calls, it was a sunday, RCN said they find
out there was work schedule, but were confused about the timing and
information the contractors told me.

So now, call first, then confront later.

tom

On 6 Apr 2007 13:08:56 -0700, "dpb" wrote:


The lock itself is relatively cheap, granted. The rest isn't cheap at
all -- either in dollars or philosophical bent of continuing the
(started to say "drift", but it's long passed the drifting stage )
rush towards a nanny-state.

Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, and I can give you
many examples of how I hate that. Seat-belt laws, helmet laws for
non-children, anti-smoking laws for bars, anti-transfat laws.

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 16:44:22 -0400, "Mike Shapp"
wrote:

After owning a home for 18 years, my homeowner's insurance company notified
that they require a complete inspection of my house in order to continue my
insurance (I've never had a claim). They want to do a full exterior,
interior, and mechanicals inspection. I couldn't get an answer from them as
to what would happen if they didn't like something.

This is something I've never heard of. Anyone else have this experience?

Thanks in advance,

Mike Shapp



Yes, insurance companies are doing this more and more.

I have rental properties. They do an inspection of at least one
building a year at renewal time, even my one family houses.

If they don't like something, they will warn you to get it fixed
within a certain time period. If you don't, they'll cancel the policy.

I'm curious.
Is your place in an urban environment?

Doug