5 ms·

It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it,

It’s worse than that actually; say the liar’s house burns down and the insurance adjuster finds the trampoline in the garden after the fact. As I understand it, the insurer can void the entire contract.

tptacek 3y ago
I mean, the insurer in that case discovered that the client was defrauding them. If you steal $100 from someone's cash register, buy scratchy lotteries with it, win $200, and put the $100 back in the register, you're still a thief. That's the logic here: you gambled on a pirate trampoline and feel like you should have won. I don't know if it really is the case that your insurance can be voided over material misrepresentations unrelated to your claim, but certainly there's no moral argument that it shouldn't work that way.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
skissane 3y ago
It isn’t always fraud or lying - you apply for insurance. Insurer asks you a million questions. One is “do you have a trampoline”? You honestly answer “No”. The fine print of the application form says you have to tell them if at any time your answers change. After a while, you forget it even asked you about a trampoline. Then, you get your kid a trampoline. Per insurance fine print, you are suppose to inform the insurer of this change in circumstances immediately, but you’ve forgotten that. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction, but while the insurer can try to void the whole contract, courts don’t always let them do it, especially if the policyholder convinces the court it was an innocent mistake or oversight rather than a deliberate lie.
- tptacek 3y ago
  This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.
  - skissane 3y ago
    We used to have a trampoline. We never once told our insurer about it. When I first applied for the insurance (at the same time we bought the house), I have no memory of being asked if we had one (we didn't at the time). I don't remember ever seeing that question from them, although I can't be completely certain it wasn't on some piece of paper and I didn't notice it. If they never ask, I'm under no obligation to tell them.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Look, I hear you, but at some point this has to be on you. The CPSC has a thing dedicated to trampolines. The Mayo Clinic has articles about it. It is a huge cause of injuries of minors around the country. I'll grant that this is slightly more obscure an issue than swimming pools, but there are tons of swimming pool buyers who would make similar claims ("nobody told me swimming pools were that risky, this is just fine print mumbo jumbo"), and I don't think anyone here would entertain those.
      - skissane 3y ago
        Well, I'm not in America, and I'm wondering if this is an American thing? I just checked my insurance policy. The word "trampoline" never once occurs in it. I don't think my insurer cares about trampolines. If I think about it: given the absurdly large payouts for some injury lawsuits in the US, I understand why American insurers might be particularly sensitive to things that might induce injury, like trampolines. Given Australian courts tend to be much more modest in the damages they award, I can see why Australian insurers might not see them as something worth paying any special attention to. Also, even in the US: it might seem obvious to someone who grew up there, but for an immigrant from a country with a different insurance system, it wouldn’t be obvious
xjcucuv 3y ago
[dead]

tptacek 3y ago

I mean, the insurer in that case discovered that the client was defrauding them. If you steal $100 from someone's cash register, buy scratchy lotteries with it, win $200, and put the $100 back in the register, you're still a thief. That's the logic here: you gambled on a pirate trampoline and feel like you should have won. I don't know if it really is the case that your insurance can be voided over material misrepresentations unrelated to your claim, but certainly there's no moral argument that it shouldn't work that way.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

skissane 3y ago

It isn’t always fraud or lying - you apply for insurance. Insurer asks you a million questions. One is “do you have a trampoline”? You honestly answer “No”. The fine print of the application form says you have to tell them if at any time your answers change. After a while, you forget it even asked you about a trampoline. Then, you get your kid a trampoline. Per insurance fine print, you are suppose to inform the insurer of this change in circumstances immediately, but you’ve forgotten that. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction, but while the insurer can try to void the whole contract, courts don’t always let them do it, especially if the policyholder convinces the court it was an innocent mistake or oversight rather than a deliberate lie.

tptacek 3y ago
This is not a good example of "fine print", because trampolines are notorious sources of injury. It's like if you added a pool to your property and didn't tell your insurer because you "forgot the fine print". You can plead that, but if I was your neighbor, I'd be rooting for the insurer. Knowing about the dangers of things you set up on your property is on you.
- skissane 3y ago
  We used to have a trampoline. We never once told our insurer about it. When I first applied for the insurance (at the same time we bought the house), I have no memory of being asked if we had one (we didn't at the time). I don't remember ever seeing that question from them, although I can't be completely certain it wasn't on some piece of paper and I didn't notice it. If they never ask, I'm under no obligation to tell them.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Look, I hear you, but at some point this has to be on you. The CPSC has a thing dedicated to trampolines. The Mayo Clinic has articles about it. It is a huge cause of injuries of minors around the country. I'll grant that this is slightly more obscure an issue than swimming pools, but there are tons of swimming pool buyers who would make similar claims ("nobody told me swimming pools were that risky, this is just fine print mumbo jumbo"), and I don't think anyone here would entertain those.
    - skissane 3y ago
      Well, I'm not in America, and I'm wondering if this is an American thing? I just checked my insurance policy. The word "trampoline" never once occurs in it. I don't think my insurer cares about trampolines. If I think about it: given the absurdly large payouts for some injury lawsuits in the US, I understand why American insurers might be particularly sensitive to things that might induce injury, like trampolines. Given Australian courts tend to be much more modest in the damages they award, I can see why Australian insurers might not see them as something worth paying any special attention to. Also, even in the US: it might seem obvious to someone who grew up there, but for an immigrant from a country with a different insurance system, it wouldn’t be obvious

xjcucuv 3y ago

[dead]