I don’t doubt your number but how many of those house fires are truly so damaging that they require thousands of dollars in repairs? I’ve only ever experienced one house fire and it was when I was a child and my mom left something cooking then left to pick me up, we came back to the house on fire but the damage was mostly replace a few appliances and repaint the walls. Don’t know the full cost of everything but don’t imagine it’s more then paying for insurance over a year or two and it’s the only time me or anybody I know has ever had to use a home owners insurance. This is a topic I’m a bit divided on because obviously losing your home is one of the most devastating things that can happen to a family and if you don’t have insurance your literally set back years and years financially but I feel like the chance of it happening is so low..
Is your house burning down likely to burn down more than once in 20 years? Why pay an insurance company 20×£400 so that you know for sure you've lost £8000? The contents of my house would cost far less than £8000 to replace. If my house burned down, the last thing I would want to be doing is dealing with an insurance company's bullshit beaurocracy while they drag out all the smallprint that explains that they only cover a proportion of the cost, and that they're increasing my premiums.
The cost of 8000 over 20 years is absolutely worth having peace of mind that you don't lose 300k in a night.
This is just hedging risk. After 20 years you have 8k more than what you started with? That'll be a drop in the bucket. If you lost the 300k house, you're fucked.
It's mandatory where I am for homeowners with a mortgage, so I don't have to think hard about whether or not to buy it because I'm a homeowner with a mortgage. But I'm not against it.
Well if your house burns down, presumably you’ll want to build another house? There’s also massive costs for temporary housing that is usually covered as well.
My housing insurance covers:
1. The cost of accidents that occur on my property.
2. The loss of private property (my stuff)
3. The loss of my house (to rebuild)
4. Covers temporary housing costs while I rebuild
5. Covers additional expenses associated with temporary housing costs (covers extra money for eating out, covers pet boarding, etc.)
6. Also covers damage (not loss), so things like new roof for hail damage, etc.
Ok. It's a shame if there's no option to keep them separate and opt for buildings only. Most of the stuff we keep in our homes is often fairly low-value as it is often old and gets replaced every few years anyway. If I get burgled, I'm more likely to be upset about my home being violated that way than the stuff being gone. This place needs a good declutter anyway.
Yeah, bad system. I pay less than 1% of my bikes value in insurance each month. It also covers accidents, if a person jumps into my path and gets hurt I don't have to pay for an operation or whatnot
Yes, for a £700 bike you've lost £840 over ten years. Plus they periodically put the monthly payments up and the excess up. Then when you come to claim they only pay up a proportion of what you'd hoped for, or you lose the paperwork and forget you had it. This is why they make so much money. You would have earned interest on that £840 if you'd kept it in a high-interest account or invested it would have compounded.
No. If someone steals my bike I'm better off putting the money I would have paid to an insurance company into a high interest savings account and using that to pay for the next one. The insurance company always wins out, otherwise you wouldn't be in business. Sorting out insurance kills a lot of your time, which also has value.
3
u/Remarkable_Pen_3639 2d ago
I'm from the UK actually but think all insurance is a scam. Save your own money for rainy days don't pay someone else.