Saw on the news tonight the damage wrought by the terrible weather down in Taranaki. While one can sympathize with those affected, what really gets me going is the fact that only 60% had full replacement insurance on their home and contents.
Why should those of us responsible to have our property fully insured at considerable expense, be expected through our taxes and rates, to prop up those too stupid not to have full insurance cover.
NZ is a dangerous place weather wise now, and with the extreems that are only going to get worse, it would be prudent to have full insurance on your property.
Wine does not make you FAT it makes you LEAN...
....against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people.
Well said organicltd. If everyone carried their fair share of Insurance then maybe the price could come down but unfortunetely so many people see Insurance as something akin to "It will never happen to me/used car salesmen pushing the hard sell" that it will be a problem until the Government and all the do gooders who rush in to "save" those who aren't insured tell them their gamble didn't pay off so... It needs to happen sooner rather than later.
What is happening there? Is the NZ govt subsidizing the rebuilding or something?
My experience of insurance companies in Aust. is if you are only 60% insured all they pay is 60%.
Mind you, having said that, I know one of the major insurers here refused to make a payout to a Director of a former prestigious building company when his house was destroyed by fire due to the TV being left on standby in an enclosed TV cupboard.
He was fighting them over the costs and value issue, pointing out for him to rebuild was less than using the insurance company's preferred suppllier, but they wouldn't have it either. Not sure if he took it further in time, but I wonder how many others are in this position?