how-to block ads
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to fiberguy
Re: Kudos Karl !!!
said by fiberguy  :I side with at&t on this one. Home owners and renters need to protect themselves with insurance. The fact that these people did lose their homes is awful, but this is why insurance is available. The leased equipment, like all other items in their home, is covered by insurance. The home owner/renter should include the box and pay the loss to at&t/dish or who ever. (and there is the cruel side to me that everyone expects) Yunno, that is a beautiful theory. Theoretically, you buy homeowner's insurance and bam! No worries when catastrophe X occurs right? You kept the policy up to date and you paid month after month religiously for years so you should be covered, but I gotta tell you that if you believe that myth, then I have a bridge to sell to you.
Insurance does not quite work that flawlessly or laterally, and, obviously, you would know that if you've ever submitted a claim, but frankly, you stike me as someone who believes in the pie-in-the-sky promises from XYZ corporation simply because the anvil has never dropped on your head and roused you from your dreams.
| |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| You're assuming that I've never filed a claim. Irregardless, that's not the case. (and thanks for the insult)
You are acting like insurance is once size fits all. If I lived in a flood area, I'm going to seek flood insurance. If I live in an area that has tornadoes, which I do, I seek to find out if I have coverage. In my case, if the tornado doesn't get me, water damage will. My insurance agent told me about how water damage affects me. Heavy rains and flash floods constitute a "flood" and I needed to seek that coverage. If I live near wooded areas (such as CA that burns once a year) I would see the proper coverage.
If you have home owners or renters insurance, then the contents of the home are going to be covered with exception to necessary riders such as high value items, collections, etc. (again, this is where it takes the basic of all skills to "ASK QUESTIONS")
I don't believe ANYTHING I'm told. What I DO believe in is what I get in writing. Oh my god.. there's that "in writing" terms. I should simply base my entire relationship with a company off of their advertisement and two or three words, right? I mean, everyone else in the world does! oi.
No, when I get insurance or any contract, *I* take the time to read it. Ask me what I'm covered for and I will tell you in advance. I buy coverage and protect myself.
Again, irregardless, how does not having the proper coverage excuse anyone? How does finding out after the fact that you didn't have coverage it's all ok to avoid obligation? I suppose after that car accident, I find out that I don't have proper coverage to protect the other guy that "it's ok.. they will forgive my responsibility - after all, it is a catastrophe or accident" right?
Where does self responsibility come in to play? Right now it's the time to be in a mood of feeling sorry - but as time goes on, and we get further away from the fires, reality comes back to the ground.
The bottom line is when they got the equipment, they were told they were responsible for that equipment from loss damage. DAMAGE. It didn't say "unless you don't have coverage"...
I'm not shocked by this story at all. Having spent time in cable, I've seen many customers get hit will bills for typical house fires, burglary, and other losses still get that bill for a lost converted. In all cases, the bills stay. In this case, it should too. What I DON'T think providers should do is charge a termination fee or any penalty for the contracts, and should be lenient on paying of their bills so these people can get their lives together. HOWEVER, I think they should have to remain responsible for the equipment UNLESS the provider choses to release them of the obligation.
I do not believe that it will make at&t or dish ANY LESS of a company for holding the customer to it either. These unfortunate people lost a lot. In many cases, they lost it all. But, don't think for one moment that those with insurance will certainly get a nice check from their insurance company to rebuild.. to buy new beds, clothes, HOUSE, TV, and YES, satellite boxes. Why shouldn't these providers collect on the damage rightfully owed?
If they chose to forgive the box fees, which they shouldn't, then that's their choice. I certainly don't think any contract penalties should matter. It's certainly up to the provider though - in this case, I won't judge them for putting their hands out, in the long run. Maybe they could be nice and forgive those with out insurance, but CERTAINLY not those WITH it.
Why feel sorry in that case? It's the insurance company paying dish.. so what?
And for the record - yes, I've filed a claim before in my life. I'm HEAVILY covered and I CERTAINLY know that it's not in the interest of the insurance company to pay claims - they aren't in the business of that. However, liability ALWAYS in ALL CASES of insurance in this company (be it home, auto, life, or health) remains first and foremost the responsibility of the individual first.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." | |
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| said by fiberguy :
You are acting like insurance is once size fits all. If I lived in a flood area, I'm going to seek flood insurance. If I live in an area that has tornadoes, which I do, I seek to find out if I have coverage. In my case, if the tornado doesn't get me, water damage will. My insurance agent told me about how water damage affects me. Heavy rains and flash floods constitute a "flood" and I needed to seek that coverage. If I live near wooded areas (such as CA that burns once a year) I would see the proper coverage.
If you have home owners or renters insurance, then the contents of the home are going to be covered with exception to necessary riders such as high value items, collections, etc. (again, this is where it takes the basic of all skills to "ASK QUESTIONS")
I don't believe ANYTHING I'm told. What I DO believe in is what I get in writing. Oh my god.. there's that "in writing" terms. I should simply base my entire relationship with a company off of their advertisement and two or three words, right? I mean, everyone else in the world does! oi.
No, when I get insurance or any contract, *I* take the time to read it. Ask me what I'm covered for and I will tell you in advance. I buy coverage and protect myself.
Again, irregardless, how does not having the proper coverage excuse anyone? How does finding out after the fact that you didn't have coverage it's all ok to avoid obligation? I suppose after that car accident, I find out that I don't have proper coverage to protect the other guy that "it's ok.. they will forgive my responsibility - after all, it is a catastrophe or accident" right?
Where does self responsibility come in to play? Right now it's the time to be in a mood of feeling sorry - but as time goes on, and we get further away from the fires, reality comes back to the ground.
The bottom line is when they got the equipment, they were told they were responsible for that equipment from loss damage. DAMAGE. It didn't say "unless you don't have coverage"...
I'm not shocked by this story at all. Having spent time in cable, I've seen many customers get hit will bills for typical house fires, burglary, and other losses still get that bill for a lost converted. In all cases, the bills stay. In this case, it should too. What I DON'T think providers should do is charge a termination fee or any penalty for the contracts, and should be lenient on paying of their bills so these people can get their lives together. HOWEVER, I think they should have to remain responsible for the equipment UNLESS the provider choses to release them of the obligation.
I do not believe that it will make at&t or dish ANY LESS of a company for holding the customer to it either. These unfortunate people lost a lot. In many cases, they lost it all. But, don't think for one moment that those with insurance will certainly get a nice check from their insurance company to rebuild.. to buy new beds, clothes, HOUSE, TV, and YES, satellite boxes. Why shouldn't these providers collect on the damage rightfully owed?
If they chose to forgive the box fees, which they shouldn't, then that's their choice. I certainly don't think any contract penalties should matter. It's certainly up to the provider though - in this case, I won't judge them for putting their hands out, in the long run. Maybe they could be nice and forgive those with out insurance, but CERTAINLY not those WITH it.
Why feel sorry in that case? It's the insurance company paying dish.. so what?
And for the record - yes, I've filed a claim before in my life. I'm HEAVILY covered and I CERTAINLY know that it's not in the interest of the insurance company to pay claims - they aren't in the business of that. However, liability ALWAYS in ALL CASES of insurance in this company (be it home, auto, life, or health) remains first and foremost the responsibility of the individual first.
Who are you trying to convince here...yourself or SilverSurfer?
--
The Toll
Let's Go Flyers!
| |
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20 | You quoted the who post just to troll? wow. | |
|
