3 ms·
Well one alternative might be to apologise to the fire-fighters, and agree to pay them a lot of money - way over the missed premiums - to put the fire out. This
by nodata 16y ago
Well one alternative might be to apologise to the fire-fighters, and agree to pay them a lot of money - way over the missed premiums - to put the fire out. This would help you, because you would otherwise lose way more money instead, and it would help them, because they could sidestep the claim that "if everybody did this...". You could even say that upfront payers get priority over one-off payers.
- rythie 16y agoWhat's your view of way over the missed premiums? 10x, 100x? (Assuming 1/100 chance over 20 years - which is very high) $75 over 20 years is $1500 So they are looking at committing $15,000 or even $150,000 if their house burns down. Now, bare in mind this person wouldn't even pay $75 so how are you going to get even $15k off them let alone $150k
- nodata 16y agoWell since this pricing scheme doesn't already exist, it's up to the fire-fighters to create it. The price can be wrong, it doesn't matter, the point is that the price gives the fire-fighters the opportunity to save the house without compromising their principles. After they save the house, they can then worry about whether the price was a fair one or not, and publicise this. People would then realise what a good deal the premiums are.