# Just try to collect your homeowner's insurance on THIS!



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I think long ago there was a passage in the Bible that one should always try to build their foundation (firmanent) on rock, not sand..but over a couple of millenia,
some people forgot....
I bet the homeowner's insurance might have to be prodded to pay up on this...

http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/slideshow?articleId=USRTR3TNS2#a=1


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm no claims adjudicator so wonder under what peril insurance this would be covered as? Mudslide? Talk about living on the edge literally. :eek2:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> I'm no claims adjudicator so wonder under what peril insurance this would be covered as? Mudslide? Talk about living on the edge literally. :eek2:


This is the US (TEXAS), but that would be considered a landslide...in Canada my homeowners insurance which has several pages of exclusions in fine print.
Under Exclusions Section 1 (1 to 32 ) exclusion (to coverage) 
22: damage caused by snowslide, earthquake, LANDSLIDE, or any OTHER EARTH MOVEMENT. HOWEVER, if any of these result in a FIRE or EXPLOSION, we will pay oNLY for the resulting loss or damage.

No wonder they burned it down!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> This is the US (TEXAS), but that would be considered a landslide...in Canada my homeowners insurance which has several pages of exclusions in fine print.
> Under Exclusions Section 1 (1 to 32 ) exclusion (to coverage)
> 22: damage caused by snowslide, earthquake, LANDSLIDE, or any OTHER EARTH MOVEMENT. HOWEVER, if any of these result in a FIRE or EXPLOSION, we will pay oNLY for the resulting loss or damage.
> 
> No wonder they burned it down!


 ... right, that's a landslide .. so by burning it down, they get fire coverage? :biggrin: The Americans claim everything - if the insurance don't pay, there's always the lawsuit method. No wonder P&C insurance companies in Canada are so profitable. 

I think an easier method was to just razor the house down the cliff. But then there might be the extra clean up costs...


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I suspect they set fire to it to facilitate demolition. They probaby decided the ground was too unstable to put any heavy equipment (or workers) close to the house. You will notice from one photo that they used a cherry picker at full horizontal extension just to set fire to it. Burning it would reduce the amount of debris to get rid of, and as it was falling towards a lake there was no risk of fire spread. And no, there wouldn't be any fire coverage if the reason for the fire was to demolish the building.

PS: This story: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/25770013/luxury-cliffhanger-lake-whitney-home-set-to-burn-at-10-am confirms my suspicions about why they chose to burn it. It also confirms it wasn't covered for "earth movement". To add insult to injury the homeowner has to pay for the demolition and cleanup.

PPS: I imagine the insurers and insured of every other home along those cliffs are checking the fine print in their policies; and the homeowners will probably see a drop in their property values.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

I just had a closer look at my Gold coverage homeowners policy..the list of exemptions is two pages long... 32 causes in which they state: *We will not cover*......

It's starting to seem like the only thing they WILL COVER , is the policy, if you miss a payment (up to 30 days)....ah..now I know why it's a "Gold" policy....


----------

