5 ms·

Doesn't matter. If you try any of these techniques your insurer will still void your home insurance if your house catches fire.

wildzzz 11mo ago
"Hello, State Farm? Yes, I'd like to put in a claim for my home insurance. My homemade electrical bomb exploded and my house- hello? Hello?!"
- Dylan16807 11mo ago
  No, the "doesn't matter" issue is that they'll try to deny you when something else starts a fire.
  - withinboredom 11mo ago
    Indeed. It's that "something else"'s fault that the fire started. You should blame them... only in this case: that's yourself.
    - Dylan16807 11mo ago
      What? Myself? Are you still talking about the battery starting a fire, and saying that it's my fault rather than the battery's fault? Because that's not an "indeed". I'm talking about non-battery fires. If you're on the same page as me, and talking about non-battery fires... What makes it my fault?? Are you saying any possible fire is my fault? With the implication that insurance shouldn't pay out for any fires ever??
rootusrootus 11mo ago
Can you cite a single instance where home insurance claim was refused because the homeowner was stupid?
- killingtime74 11mo ago
  https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-06/couple-denied-aami-home-insurance-claim-after-selling-eggs/101201860 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-06/couple-denied-aami-ho...
  - rootusrootus 11mo ago
    Okay, I suppose I asked for that, exposing my US-centric thoughts. I meant in the US :). In the US, insurance covers stupidity. At least once -- your insurer may drop you after they pay out. As long as you don't have an exclusion in the contract covering a particular type of stupidity, and you are not committing fraud, you will be covered.
  - dghlsakjg 11mo ago
    Looks like that case was resolved to the policyholders satisfaction, so not a good example at all. Besides that, the denial was because they were, in actuality, not in compliance with their policy, not because they did something stupid. It was a stupid denial because the violation was extremely in the “well, technically” category, and had nothing to do with the loss. https://www.insurancenews.com.au/daily/egg-side-hustle-claim-denial-case-resolved https://www.insurancenews.com.au/daily/egg-side-hustle-claim...
ornornor 11mo ago
Why? Also, I’ve always had a rider in my contracts that said the insurer waives their right to not pay if I’m at fault. I don’t know why this rider even exists but I always get it since it was first offered to me years ago.

wildzzz 11mo ago

"Hello, State Farm? Yes, I'd like to put in a claim for my home insurance. My homemade electrical bomb exploded and my house- hello? Hello?!"

Dylan16807 11mo ago
No, the "doesn't matter" issue is that they'll try to deny you when something else starts a fire.
- withinboredom 11mo ago
  Indeed. It's that "something else"'s fault that the fire started. You should blame them... only in this case: that's yourself.
  - Dylan16807 11mo ago
    What? Myself? Are you still talking about the battery starting a fire, and saying that it's my fault rather than the battery's fault? Because that's not an "indeed". I'm talking about non-battery fires. If you're on the same page as me, and talking about non-battery fires... What makes it my fault?? Are you saying any possible fire is my fault? With the implication that insurance shouldn't pay out for any fires ever??

rootusrootus 11mo ago

Can you cite a single instance where home insurance claim was refused because the homeowner was stupid?

killingtime74 11mo ago
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-06/couple-denied-aami-home-insurance-claim-after-selling-eggs/101201860 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-06/couple-denied-aami-ho...
- rootusrootus 11mo ago
  Okay, I suppose I asked for that, exposing my US-centric thoughts. I meant in the US :). In the US, insurance covers stupidity. At least once -- your insurer may drop you after they pay out. As long as you don't have an exclusion in the contract covering a particular type of stupidity, and you are not committing fraud, you will be covered.
- dghlsakjg 11mo ago
  Looks like that case was resolved to the policyholders satisfaction, so not a good example at all. Besides that, the denial was because they were, in actuality, not in compliance with their policy, not because they did something stupid. It was a stupid denial because the violation was extremely in the “well, technically” category, and had nothing to do with the loss. https://www.insurancenews.com.au/daily/egg-side-hustle-claim-denial-case-resolved https://www.insurancenews.com.au/daily/egg-side-hustle-claim...

ornornor 11mo ago

Why? Also, I’ve always had a rider in my contracts that said the insurer waives their right to not pay if I’m at fault. I don’t know why this rider even exists but I always get it since it was first offered to me years ago.