warra48
I've drunk all my homebrew and I'm still worried.
Warra,
Is it true that say for example you are insured for 80k contents, your house burns down and you loose everything..
You go to replace it, it prices out at 94k - Insurance says you are 14k 'Under insured' so pay you out 80k-14k = 66k ??
Anyone infact?
Cocko,
No, that's not how it works. You'll get paid your $80K if everything is destroyed. As it is, you'll still be $14K down, because to replace everything you'll need to find another $14K.
The process used is called "Average". Let's say you have contents worth $100K to replace, but you only insure for $60K. That's 40% underinsured.
So, if you have a loss of $10K, you'll get 60% of your loss paid, that is $6K. That's equivalent to the 60% proportion you've insured.
Having said that, in all my years I only ever applied the principle on 1 or 2 occasions where there clearly was blatant and deliberate underinsurance. For the normal day to day losses, we didn't worry about it, except to advise people to increase their insured amount.
Is it true that say for example you are insured for 80k contents, your house burns down and you loose everything..
You go to replace it, it prices out at 94k - Insurance says you are 14k 'Under insured' so pay you out 80k-14k = 66k ??
Anyone infact?
Cocko,
No, that's not how it works. You'll get paid your $80K if everything is destroyed. As it is, you'll still be $14K down, because to replace everything you'll need to find another $14K.
The process used is called "Average". Let's say you have contents worth $100K to replace, but you only insure for $60K. That's 40% underinsured.
So, if you have a loss of $10K, you'll get 60% of your loss paid, that is $6K. That's equivalent to the 60% proportion you've insured.
Having said that, in all my years I only ever applied the principle on 1 or 2 occasions where there clearly was blatant and deliberate underinsurance. For the normal day to day losses, we didn't worry about it, except to advise people to increase their insured amount.