I feel pitty for the people who have been flooded. It must be a terrible experience and I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.
However, insurance is meant for unforeseen events.
If you live in a house that has flooded before, especially if it has happened more than once, then a flood is no longer an unforeseen event. It is a question of when, rather than if.
It is logical business to not offer life cover for someone who has terminal cancer. It is logical business not to not pay out for theft if someone has left their windows and doors open. Why isn't it logical business for insurers to refuse flood cover for houses who are located in areas that flood?
I feel the insurers are being made out to be the big baddies, but am I being unreasonable to totally see where the insurers are coming from?
Please or to access all these features
Please
or
to access all these features
AIBU?
In thinking that if you live in a house that regularly floods that it is reasonable that insurers either won't offer flood cover or have an extremely high excess?
38 replies
pingu2209 · 02/12/2012 18:15
OP posts:
PolterGoose ·
02/12/2012 18:38
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
PolterGoose ·
02/12/2012 18:41
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Please create an account
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.