Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

krocky · Post by **krocky** » May 29th, 2013, 12:29 pm

Off topic/Removed. Trip

krocky · Post by **krocky** » May 29th, 2013, 12:42 pm

royalmike wrote:The Mayor keeps saying the District will pay for new drive way and bushes why doesn't she just say the property tax payers will cover the city mistakes.

The district doesn't take responsibility for any of its mistakes. When they were digging up the road they broke a water main and flooded 3 or 4 peoples basements. Rather than take responsibility they told the people that they "HAD" to go through their own insurance. Fine and dandy but their rates will go up if they previously had any type of claims free discount. Why didn't the district volunteer to pay for repairs under "their" liability insurance.?? After all it was their fault and if any of the people took the district to court they would win, hands down, but then who can afford the lawyers. It's a double edged sword.

I'm sure the "defenders" of the system will be all over this one with the "well they have to build roads don't they" justification because it wasn't "THEIR" basement that was flooded, just like it isn't "THEIR" driveway that is being blocked. What makes me laugh is it would be these same people, that have no sympathy for anyone but themselves, that would be at the front of the whine line if it was happening to them.!!

johnhenry · Post by **johnhenry** » May 29th, 2013, 12:52 pm

royalmike wrote:The Mayor keeps saying the District will pay for new drive way and bushes why doesn't she just say the property tax payers will cover the city mistakes.

krocky wrote:The district doesn't take responsibility for any of its mistakes. When they were digging up the road they broke a water main and flooded 3 or 4 peoples basements. Rather than take responsibility they told the people that they "HAD" to go through their own insurance. Fine and dandy but their rates will go up if they previously had any type of claims free discount. Why didn't the district volunteer to pay for repairs under "their" liability insurance.?? After all it was their fault and if any of the people took the district to court they would win, hands down, but then who can afford the lawyers. It's a double edged sword.

I'm sure the "defenders" of the system will be all over this one with the "well they have to build roads don't they" justification because it wasn't "THEIR" basement that was flooded, just like it isn't "THEIR" driveway that is being blocked. What makes me laugh is it would be these same people, that have no sympathy for anyone but themselves, that would be at the front of the whine line if it was happening to them.!!

First off, the Municipality hired contractors. These contractors broke the water line. Secondly, home owners insurance company will negotiate claims with the contractors insurance company. The home owners should not see an increase to insurance rates or have to hire lawyers.

krocky · Post by **krocky** » May 29th, 2013, 1:29 pm

johnhenry wrote: First off, the Municipality hired contractors. These contractors broke the water line. Secondly, home owners insurance company will negotiate claims with the contractors insurance company. The home owners should not see an increase to insurance rates or have to hire lawyers.

A little off topic and you are probably correct that they hired contractors"but" the general contractor, in this case the Municipality, is "ultimately" responsible for the mistakes of the contractors it hires. You can look that one up in the law books.

Secondly, in theory I agree, the home owners insurance company should go after the responsible contractors insurance or the Municipality to recoup their losses, its called subrogation but in practice these days that is too much hassle and doesn't often happen so the "responsible" party gets away with it. It is one of the reasons we all pay high insurance premiums.

Thirdly, if they have a claims free discount and make a claim they WILL lose that discount regardless. That 's why its called a "Claims Free" discount and it doesn't matter who's at fault. I have a personal acquaintance close to the source and is where this information came from. So with the Municipality (or contractor) not stepping up and taking responsibility and forcing the home owners to go through their own insurance, they are insuring that the homeowner will pay higher rates for something that was no fault of their own.

Guess I better get back on topic, sorry folks..!!

Bsuds · Post by **Bsuds** » May 29th, 2013, 1:34 pm

krocky wrote:
Thirdly, if they have a claims free discount and make a claim they WILL lose that discount regardless. That 's why its called a "Claims Free" discount and it doesn't matter who's at fault.

We had a claim a few years beck that was our fault and one before that which was not. Our rates were not affected at all.

twobits · Post by **twobits** » May 29th, 2013, 1:40 pm

krocky wrote: A little off topic and you are probably correct that they hired contractors"but" the general contractor, in this case the Municipality, is "ultimately" responsible for the mistakes of the contractors it hires. You can look that one up in the law books.

Secondly, in theory I agree, the home owners insurance company should go after the responsible contractors insurance or the Municipality to recoup their losses, its called subrogation but in practice these days that is too much hassle and doesn't often happen so the "responsible" party gets away with it. It is one of the reasons we all pay high insurance premiums.

Thirdly, if they have a claims free discount and make a claim they WILL lose that discount regardless. That 's why its called a "Claims Free" discount and it doesn't matter who's at fault. I have a personal acquaintance close to the source and is where this information came from. So with the Municipality (or contractor) not stepping up and taking responsibility and forcing the home owners to go through their own insurance, they are insuring that the homeowner will pay higher rates for something that was no fault of their own.

Guess I better get back on topic, sorry folks..!!

That's just a load of you know what. The proper route is to go thru their own insurance company but they in turn will go after the contractor or the city's insurer. The homeowners will remain claim free. Someone is not giving you the straight goods on this krocky.

krocky · Post by **krocky** » May 29th, 2013, 2:05 pm

twobits wrote:The homeowners will remain claim free. Someone is not giving you the straight goods on this krocky.

I disagree, I know someone who is living this as we speak. Let's be clear, I am not saying their "rates" will go up if they are not at fault, I'm saying that "IF" they have a claims free discount and they make a claim, of any sort, at fault or not, that they will lose their claims free discount and, as a result, pay higher premiums. Don't take my word for it, check with your insurance company.

Anyway, perhaps we should just agree to disagree and get back to the topic at hand..??

The Okanagan's Discussion Forum

Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.

Re: Summerland Couple at the End of Their Pole.