"himself" wrote in message
...
Sacha wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-18626837

If it's in your insurance policy that you're not covered against Acts
of God they're absolutely right.
--



Surely they would have to prove that God exists?

Interesting thought! Then they would claim "force majeure" which is what
what my neighbour's insurance company are holding their hopes on.
It's just a getting out of paying thing for them.






Rog
http:\\rog.pynguins.com

"Muddymike" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:09:51 +0100, "Christina Websell"
wrote:


"Sacha" wrote in message
...
On 2012-06-28 23:28:20 +0100, Pam Moore
said:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:20:03 +0100, "Christina Websell"
wrote:


"Emery Davis" wrote in message
...
Just been reading about more heavy rain and flash floods:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18624085

Hope everyone is OK, and your gardens too.

I was out in my car today when hailstorms started, first marble sized
but
then golfballs and torrential rain started. I pulled into the side
of
the
road. I felt sure my windscreen or the other windows would be
shattered
as
they hit the car at huge force and some of the hailstones that my
neighbour
captured on his phone camera are 3 inches across.
Lots of flooding, I expect most things in my allotment will have been
wiped
out.

My car is dented on the bonnet and roof.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-18626837


They mentioned those hailstones on the weather forecast. I thought he
was joking! Nasty.

Pam in Bristol

It sounds truly horrible. We actually had sun here today for much of
the
day, then threatening grey cloud, then sun again. We went out to
supper
tonight and driving home could see quite a misty covering to Dartmoor.
--

I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away with the
glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to cover
it.
They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible for that.
I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?

I say read the exclusion clauses in your policy very carefully.

Our Forester was covered when damaged by a branch that fell from a tree in
high wind. Is that not also an act of god?

Mike

The tree might have belonged to someone that the insurance company could
blame?
It could be considered an Act of God that the wind got very high, but I feel
sure the owner of the tree ended up with the bill.

Tina

"kay" wrote in message
...

'Rod[_5_ Wrote:
;963125']On Friday, 29 June 2012 06:09:51 UTC+1, Christina Websell
wrote:-
I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away with
the
glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to cover
it.
They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible for that.
I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?-

It's about time the OFT had a look at these clauses. It's silly and
iniquitous that companies should get away with such things in these more
enlightened times.
We take out insurance against unexpected events and no unreasonable
exclusions should be allowed in the contracts. Not much point in
'comprehensive' cover otherwise.

Rod

But you have to look at it from their point of view too. They have to be
able to statistically quantify the risks so they can set the premiums at
a level where they can cover all claims and make a profit. If they
can't work out the probability of an event happening, then they risk
going out of business if they cover it. And if they can quantify it, but
the expected loss to them is large, then they'll have to increase
premiums,

No, kay, some insurance companies always try to wriggle out of paying up.
I have claimed only once on my car insurance (not my fault, the other
driver drove off leaving me with a write-off) and once on my home insurance
for subsidence. Wow, that last one left them a hole in their budget!
Most (honest) people never - or hardly ever - claim which enables the
insurance companies to make huge profits.

Some insurance companies will try and avoid paying at all costs if you claim
IF they can get away with it.
I had my house insured with a great company, everything fine for many years.
To their great credit they never tried to get away with it - when cracking
was seen, I had two years of structural engineer visits to measure the crack
progress. They were hoping to get away with repairing cosmetic cracks but
unfortunately the structural engineer advised underpinning the side and
slightly round the back of the house.
They paid up happily, thirty grand! I had to live here while it was going
on and one day my house was propped up only on bricks and a bit of iron.
The wind got up and my carpet billowed - it was winter.

I hardly want to tell them that the front of my house is now cracking. They
should have done it all round at that time.
I will have to tell them soon.
No-one should have to live in a house when it is being underpinned. It's
dire.
However I know that my house insurance company will not dodge their
obligations.
They are brilliant Eagle Star now known as Zurich.

Maybe I should have got my car insurance from there too.
Mr F has been damaged by the massive - never before seen here-hailstones and
it seems pointless to pursue a claim.

It was a horrible experience, Mr F has a sun roof and I thought that would
soon be smashed too

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
On 29/06/2012 23:25, kay wrote:
'Rod[_5_ Wrote:
;963125']On Friday, 29 June 2012 06:09:51 UTC+1, Christina Websell
wrote:-
I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away with
the
glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to cover
it.
They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible for that.
I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?-

It's about time the OFT had a look at these clauses. It's silly and
iniquitous that companies should get away with such things in these more
enlightened times.
We take out insurance against unexpected events and no unreasonable
exclusions should be allowed in the contracts. Not much point in
'comprehensive' cover otherwise.

Rod

But you have to look at it from their point of view too. They have to be
able to statistically quantify the risks so they can set the premiums at
a level where they can cover all claims and make a profit. If they
can't work out the probability of an event happening, then they risk
going out of business if they cover it. And if they can quantify it, but
the expected loss to them is large, then they'll have to increase
premiums,


According to an Insurance spokesman on "Breakfast" on TV a short whilst
ago he said that those with Fully Comprehensive insurance would be covered
for the Hail damage to cars.


It's pointless if you have don't have a fairly new car. The damage will be
more than my car is worth. It will (allegedly) cost 2-3 grand to repair so
it will be written off.
Interested today to find out that when someone asked their insurance company
about hailstone damage they refused to let her back off from the enquiry
even though she did not want to proceed and said they would increase her
premium from now on. That's not good.
Insurance companies take their chance. They usually win.

Which is rather fortunate. If insurance companies were not able to make a profit, then they would withdraw from the business and you would have had to pay for your underpinning yourself.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:09:51 +0100, Christina Websell wrote:

I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away with
the glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to
cover it. They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible
for that. I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?

They are wriggling as they will have many thousands of claims and they are
essentially write offs as pulling all those dints out of the panels will take
a lot time and skilled labour and thus be very expensive.

As others have said you need to read the small print of your policy *very*
carefully. And be persistant and at all times polite avoiding the word "you",
refer to "them" or the insurance companies name. This keeps it non-personal
and reduces the chances of the person you are dealing with getting naturally
defensive, remember it's not their personal fault that they have to defend
the company and follow the companies ruleings. get them on your side and they
will be more likely to help you rather than hinder.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:25:18 +0000, kay wrote:

But you have to look at it from their point of view too. They have to
be able to statistically quantify the risks so they can set the
premiums at a level where they can cover all claims and make a profit.

True enough but such a hail event over such large area is pretty much
unprecidented in the UK. IMHO they ought to take the hit(*), the chnaces of
it happening again are pretty low.

(*) Well the insurance companies won't they call on the underwriters and the
"Lloyds names". Oh dear the fat bankers having to cough up some cash for once
instead of reaping huge returns. That's the risk *they* take investing in the
insurance markets not *us*.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"kay" wrote in message
...

'Rod[_5_ Wrote:
;963125']On Friday, 29 June 2012 06:09:51 UTC+1, Christina Websell
wrote:-
I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away with
the
glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to
cover it.
They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible for
that. I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?-

It's about time the OFT had a look at these clauses. It's silly and
iniquitous that companies should get away with such things in these
more enlightened times.
We take out insurance against unexpected events and no unreasonable
exclusions should be allowed in the contracts. Not much point in
'comprehensive' cover otherwise.

Rod

But you have to look at it from their point of view too. They have to
be able to statistically quantify the risks so they can set the
premiums at a level where they can cover all claims and make a
profit. If they can't work out the probability of an event
happening, then they risk going out of business if they cover it. And
if they can quantify it, but the expected loss to them is large, then
they'll have to increase premiums,

No, kay, some insurance companies always try to wriggle out of paying
up. I have claimed only once on my car insurance (not my fault, the
other driver drove off leaving me with a write-off) and once on my
home insurance for subsidence. Wow, that last one left them a hole in
their budget! Most (honest) people never - or hardly ever - claim
which enables the insurance companies to make huge profits.

Some insurance companies will try and avoid paying at all costs if you
claim IF they can get away with it.
I had my house insured with a great company, everything fine for many
years. To their great credit they never tried to get away with it -
when cracking was seen, I had two years of structural engineer visits
to measure the crack progress. They were hoping to get away with
repairing cosmetic cracks but unfortunately the structural engineer
advised underpinning the side and slightly round the back of the
house. They paid up happily, thirty grand! I had to live here while
it was going on and one day my house was propped up only on bricks and
a bit of iron. The wind got up and my carpet billowed - it was
winter.

I hardly want to tell them that the front of my house is now cracking.
They should have done it all round at that time.
I will have to tell them soon.
No-one should have to live in a house when it is being underpinned.
It's dire.
However I know that my house insurance company will not dodge their
obligations.
They are brilliant Eagle Star now known as Zurich.

Maybe I should have got my car insurance from there too.
Mr F has been damaged by the massive - never before seen
here-hailstones and it seems pointless to pursue a claim.

It was a horrible experience, Mr F has a sun roof and I thought that
would soon be smashed too






Underpinned, scary.
Buildings which have been underpinned can sometimes be unsaleable.
This is because a large % of them require it more than once, making them
extremely high risk and uninsurable to a buyer. It is often economical to
demolish the building and start again, probably with a very deep concrete
sub structure. Very expensive.
One of the most common reasons to underpin is shrinkage and expansion of
clay sub soil. And the Victorian or Edwardian builder, who, like today
could have been a bogus horrible villain cutting costs by not digging
deep enough.

Baz

"Baz" wrote in message
...
"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"kay" wrote in message
...

'Rod[_5_ Wrote:
;963125']On Friday, 29 June 2012 06:09:51 UTC+1, Christina Websell
wrote:-
I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away with
the
glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to
cover it.
They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible for
that. I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?-

It's about time the OFT had a look at these clauses. It's silly and
iniquitous that companies should get away with such things in these
more enlightened times.
We take out insurance against unexpected events and no unreasonable
exclusions should be allowed in the contracts. Not much point in
'comprehensive' cover otherwise.

Rod

But you have to look at it from their point of view too. They have to
be able to statistically quantify the risks so they can set the
premiums at a level where they can cover all claims and make a
profit. If they can't work out the probability of an event
happening, then they risk going out of business if they cover it. And
if they can quantify it, but the expected loss to them is large, then
they'll have to increase premiums,

No, kay, some insurance companies always try to wriggle out of paying
up. I have claimed only once on my car insurance (not my fault, the
other driver drove off leaving me with a write-off) and once on my
home insurance for subsidence. Wow, that last one left them a hole in
their budget! Most (honest) people never - or hardly ever - claim
which enables the insurance companies to make huge profits.

Some insurance companies will try and avoid paying at all costs if you
claim IF they can get away with it.
I had my house insured with a great company, everything fine for many
years. To their great credit they never tried to get away with it -
when cracking was seen, I had two years of structural engineer visits
to measure the crack progress. They were hoping to get away with
repairing cosmetic cracks but unfortunately the structural engineer
advised underpinning the side and slightly round the back of the
house. They paid up happily, thirty grand! I had to live here while
it was going on and one day my house was propped up only on bricks and
a bit of iron. The wind got up and my carpet billowed - it was
winter.

I hardly want to tell them that the front of my house is now cracking.
They should have done it all round at that time.
I will have to tell them soon.
No-one should have to live in a house when it is being underpinned.
It's dire.
However I know that my house insurance company will not dodge their
obligations.
They are brilliant Eagle Star now known as Zurich.

Maybe I should have got my car insurance from there too.
Mr F has been damaged by the massive - never before seen
here-hailstones and it seems pointless to pursue a claim.

It was a horrible experience, Mr F has a sun roof and I thought that
would soon be smashed too

Underpinned, scary.
Buildings which have been underpinned can sometimes be unsaleable.
This is because a large % of them require it more than once, making them
extremely high risk and uninsurable to a buyer. It is often economical to
demolish the building and start again, probably with a very deep concrete
sub structure. Very expensive.
One of the most common reasons to underpin is shrinkage and expansion of
clay sub soil. And the Victorian or Edwardian builder, who, like today
could have been a bogus horrible villain cutting costs by not digging
deep enough.

Baz

I don't intend to move from here until I am carried out in a box and luckily
my insurance company are happy to continue to cover me.
Yes, shrinkage and expansion of the clay sub soil was the cause. My house
was built in the 30's so no naughty Victorian/Edwardian builders are to
blame.

"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"Baz" wrote in message
...
"Christina Websell" wrote in
:


"kay" wrote in message
...

'Rod[_5_ Wrote:
;963125']On Friday, 29 June 2012 06:09:51 UTC+1, Christina Websell
wrote:-
I have never experienced any hailstones like those. I got away
with the
glass (phew) but my car has been dented. Insurance don't want to
cover it.
They say it was an Act of God and they cannot be responsible for
that. I say if I pay my insurance money, they should pay up.
What do you think?-

It's about time the OFT had a look at these clauses. It's silly
and iniquitous that companies should get away with such things in
these more enlightened times.
We take out insurance against unexpected events and no
unreasonable exclusions should be allowed in the contracts. Not
much point in 'comprehensive' cover otherwise.

Rod

But you have to look at it from their point of view too. They have
to be able to statistically quantify the risks so they can set the
premiums at a level where they can cover all claims and make a
profit. If they can't work out the probability of an event
happening, then they risk going out of business if they cover it.
And if they can quantify it, but the expected loss to them is
large, then they'll have to increase premiums,

No, kay, some insurance companies always try to wriggle out of
paying up. I have claimed only once on my car insurance (not my
fault, the other driver drove off leaving me with a write-off) and
once on my home insurance for subsidence. Wow, that last one left
them a hole in their budget! Most (honest) people never - or hardly
ever - claim which enables the insurance companies to make huge
profits.

Some insurance companies will try and avoid paying at all costs if
you claim IF they can get away with it.
I had my house insured with a great company, everything fine for
many years. To their great credit they never tried to get away with
it - when cracking was seen, I had two years of structural engineer
visits to measure the crack progress. They were hoping to get away
with repairing cosmetic cracks but unfortunately the structural
engineer advised underpinning the side and slightly round the back
of the house. They paid up happily, thirty grand! I had to live
here while it was going on and one day my house was propped up only
on bricks and a bit of iron. The wind got up and my carpet billowed
- it was winter.

I hardly want to tell them that the front of my house is now
cracking. They should have done it all round at that time.
I will have to tell them soon.
No-one should have to live in a house when it is being underpinned.
It's dire.
However I know that my house insurance company will not dodge their
obligations.
They are brilliant Eagle Star now known as Zurich.

Maybe I should have got my car insurance from there too.
Mr F has been damaged by the massive - never before seen
here-hailstones and it seems pointless to pursue a claim.

It was a horrible experience, Mr F has a sun roof and I thought that
would soon be smashed too

Underpinned, scary.
Buildings which have been underpinned can sometimes be unsaleable.
This is because a large % of them require it more than once, making
them extremely high risk and uninsurable to a buyer. It is often
economical to demolish the building and start again, probably with a
very deep concrete sub structure. Very expensive.
One of the most common reasons to underpin is shrinkage and expansion
of clay sub soil. And the Victorian or Edwardian builder, who, like
today could have been a bogus horrible villain cutting costs by not
digging deep enough.

Baz

I don't intend to move from here until I am carried out in a box and
luckily my insurance company are happy to continue to cover me.
Yes, shrinkage and expansion of the clay sub soil was the cause. My
house was built in the 30's so no naughty Victorian/Edwardian builders
are to blame.




I hope that box will empty for many, many years to come.

Baz