if we just make insurer companies put their stuff in big print on one page, then more stuff will be covered, because less will fit on the page to say it isn\’t covered, and this will help all the people who cannot afford deductibles and out of pocket expenses and stuff. This will be much better and easier to understand.
unless they start using that really big paper I read about awhile back.
\”And by the way, sounds like you are the name caller!\” Ooh, good one Capital. What are you? 5?
No one here said anything about deductibles being too high, too low, too big, too short, blah blah blah. I didn\’t say the system was perfect, or even that it works. But, you obviously did not read what people wrote.
Do yourself a favor. Call Sylvan Learning Center. They can set you up with a tutor who can teach you reading comprehension. If you\’re lucky maybe Joanna will call too. Then you can become best friends forever. (My \”rude\” comments come from the frustration of people being called names for voicing their thoughts.)
Jewel, don\’t think you are the only frustrated person, don\’t think you like it when someone else makes a comment! From what I have read, you seem to be the one doing the name calling and no, I don\’t think you get the point yet!
\”From what I have read, you seem to be the one doing the name calling\” – How so? Because I called someone a name AFTER they called someone else a name? I take it back then. Her post was idiotic (not to mention rude). Is that better now?
Now, please tell me where else I have called someone a name. If you can\’t, then kindly shut up.
\”don\’t think you like it when someone else makes a comment!\” I have no problem with comments when they are not belittling someone for having a different opinion or are not inaccurate regarding another\’s point of view.
\”no, I don\’t think you get the point yet!\” Well, the problem seems to be that you DON\’T think. So, I guess I will consider the source.
1. Fire policy
exclusion: any destruction but accidental fire
2. Wind policy
exclusion: any destruction but wind
3. Earthquake policy:
exclusion: any destruction but movement of earth (note: not to include sinkholes, that\’s policy 4)
4. sinkhole policy
excl: any destruct that don\’t involve sinkin\’, including earthquake that makes big crack that swallows whole house
5. theft policy: covers theft of house if someone steals it
excl: does not cover theft of stuff in house (that\’s in 6)
6. theft of stuff in house
excl: does not cover theft of house or detached structure and/or pool
7. meteor/falling object policy: damage must come from fallin\’ stuff from outer space
8. hurricane policy: only covers wind when accompanied by rain, but not wind only, and not rain that pools up and floods in from surge or levee rupture, river swellin\’, or sudden geyser
10. terrorism policy: does not cover anything above except that actually caused by a terrorist provided he didn\’t cause an earthquake, hurricane, sinkhole, theif, rain, wind, electrical fire, fireball, or a really bad smell.
Jewel, you are a gem. Thanks for the laugh. Joanna – no nerve hit. As for you J, please come back to this board once your IQ exceeds the IQ of a head of cabbage. Thank you.
Better be careful how much paper we\’ll be using to put all this into print… just think how many trees this will take. And what will it be used for? To fill our landfills!
Chad, your posts make me smile no matter what. Your simplified approach to the simplified policy is exactly what is needed to clarify those darn confusing policies and all their exclusions that no one reads anyway.
In 1984 ISO came out with the easy to read 14 page HO policy. In 1991 they added 4 more pages making it easier to read. In the 2000 edition it has 22 pages. Have the additional pages made it easier to understand? It does not make Trent Lott or any other insured read the policy. We will always have the insureds (after the loss)who exclaim that if they knew the coverage for the loss was available, they would have purchased it, no matter what it cost.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
if we just make insurer companies put their stuff in big print on one page, then more stuff will be covered, because less will fit on the page to say it isn\’t covered, and this will help all the people who cannot afford deductibles and out of pocket expenses and stuff. This will be much better and easier to understand.
unless they start using that really big paper I read about awhile back.
\”And by the way, sounds like you are the name caller!\” Ooh, good one Capital. What are you? 5?
No one here said anything about deductibles being too high, too low, too big, too short, blah blah blah. I didn\’t say the system was perfect, or even that it works. But, you obviously did not read what people wrote.
Do yourself a favor. Call Sylvan Learning Center. They can set you up with a tutor who can teach you reading comprehension. If you\’re lucky maybe Joanna will call too. Then you can become best friends forever. (My \”rude\” comments come from the frustration of people being called names for voicing their thoughts.)
Jewel, don\’t think you are the only frustrated person, don\’t think you like it when someone else makes a comment! From what I have read, you seem to be the one doing the name calling and no, I don\’t think you get the point yet!
\”From what I have read, you seem to be the one doing the name calling\” – How so? Because I called someone a name AFTER they called someone else a name? I take it back then. Her post was idiotic (not to mention rude). Is that better now?
Now, please tell me where else I have called someone a name. If you can\’t, then kindly shut up.
\”don\’t think you like it when someone else makes a comment!\” I have no problem with comments when they are not belittling someone for having a different opinion or are not inaccurate regarding another\’s point of view.
\”no, I don\’t think you get the point yet!\” Well, the problem seems to be that you DON\’T think. So, I guess I will consider the source.
I can see the future…
all exclusions on one page…
we need several policies to cover our house…
1. Fire policy
exclusion: any destruction but accidental fire
2. Wind policy
exclusion: any destruction but wind
3. Earthquake policy:
exclusion: any destruction but movement of earth (note: not to include sinkholes, that\’s policy 4)
4. sinkhole policy
excl: any destruct that don\’t involve sinkin\’, including earthquake that makes big crack that swallows whole house
5. theft policy: covers theft of house if someone steals it
excl: does not cover theft of stuff in house (that\’s in 6)
6. theft of stuff in house
excl: does not cover theft of house or detached structure and/or pool
7. meteor/falling object policy: damage must come from fallin\’ stuff from outer space
8. hurricane policy: only covers wind when accompanied by rain, but not wind only, and not rain that pools up and floods in from surge or levee rupture, river swellin\’, or sudden geyser
9. flood policy
excl: earthquakin, firein, theft\’n, rainin, sinkin,
10. terrorism policy: does not cover anything above except that actually caused by a terrorist provided he didn\’t cause an earthquake, hurricane, sinkhole, theif, rain, wind, electrical fire, fireball, or a really bad smell.
total cost:
1. 200.00
2. 200.00
3. 200.00
4. 150.00
5. 150.00
6. 150.00
7. 200.00
8. 200.00
9. 200.00
10. 200.00
Total Cost: $1850 per every $100000 you insure, with a 10% ded per policy.
Or, we could keep things like they is now.
Jewel, you are a gem. Thanks for the laugh. Joanna – no nerve hit. As for you J, please come back to this board once your IQ exceeds the IQ of a head of cabbage. Thank you.
Chad, sounds like a winner!
Better be careful how much paper we\’ll be using to put all this into print… just think how many trees this will take. And what will it be used for? To fill our landfills!
Chad, your posts make me smile no matter what. Your simplified approach to the simplified policy is exactly what is needed to clarify those darn confusing policies and all their exclusions that no one reads anyway.
In 1984 ISO came out with the easy to read 14 page HO policy. In 1991 they added 4 more pages making it easier to read. In the 2000 edition it has 22 pages. Have the additional pages made it easier to understand? It does not make Trent Lott or any other insured read the policy. We will always have the insureds (after the loss)who exclaim that if they knew the coverage for the loss was available, they would have purchased it, no matter what it cost.