3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
@davidc4430 wrote:raising the cost of the policy AFTER the disaster is attempting to recoup the money they are paying out, nothing to do with living in an area of some possible danger.
how many homes burn down in the metroplitan area each year?
must be tripple the number in rural areas.
does every one in the street get a rise in their insurance premium because fred nerk fell asleep and left the stove on?
of course not.
btw, i would imagine once an area has been burnt its going to be a long time before that area would be considered 'dangerous'
nothing left to burn?
the premium should have been set right prior to the fire.
sure if you live in an area where you could be affected by bushfire you should make an effort to lower the risk
and bushfires are not new, so insurance companies should be setting prices to cover them.
The insurance companies are simply responding to the increased risk associated with homes built in fire prone areas due to climate change.
Exactly the same thing has already happened to grain harvesters. There have been significant numbers of harvesters go up in flames in the last few years ( including my brothers ). This is due to changes in crops grown, some of which have fine, flammable dust that sticks to exhaust systems. The insurance companies response is to increase premiums for grain harvesters to the point where it is almost too costly to use and in some cases to refuse to insure the machines at all.
If farmers want to grow highly flammable crops, they accept the risk of harvesters going up in flames without insurance. If people want to live in very high risk, fire prone areas, they need to accept that insurance may be too expensive or perhaps not even offered. Its called taking responsibility for your own decisions and actions. Something many seem to struggle with in today's society. ( its always someone elses fault isnt it ? )
Spoiler
Not forgetting that everything is SCOMO's fault.......
