Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad News For You
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 36 Newer→ Last
So wrong. I hope we get journalists asking the government with some urgency how this appalling story reflects the intent and outcome of their lengthy backroom negotiations with the insurance industry.
Hang about. Didn't John Key and Gerry Brownlee delay for a long time because they were negotiating carefully with insurers and reinsurers?
How could they possibly have missed this little gem? How can Tower say "what the government mandates with regard to land is nothing to do with them", when John and Gerry negotiated so carefully?
Oh David, I'm so so sorry, what a kick in the teeth after you and Jen have been so bloody brave.
Would it be wothwhile to ask, "What would Alan Bollard do?" I think non-BSA-approved language through a loudhailer would only be the beginning.
Carolyn J Sanders, in reply to
Tower isn't part of IAG, they're competitors.
IAG's brands in NZ are State, NZI, Mike Henry and a few niche ones.
(Not employed by them, but have done some work there in the past).
Che Tibby, in reply to
Didn’t John Key and Gerry Brownlee delay for a long time because they were negotiating carefully with insurers and reinsurers?
am picturing the PM and Minister walking out of a meeting, doing a high-five, then walking to TV cameras. back in meeting, insurers are doing a high-five and shouting "suckers!"
Many many thanks for the supportive words and helpful suggestions:
don't give up, get angry!
Don't worry, I'm not giving up...
if the house is repairable, you could pay to move it to another location
It is repairable, but according to the EQC it has over $200,000 worth of damage. I'm not entirely sure it would survive a trip. But the same idea has occurred to me -- and it may be worth a go.
This is a horrible situation. I think it might be a little unfair of people to suggest that all insurance companies are this bad - I am sure there would be some genuine ones.
In my own experience for example either myself or family members have had four or five different claims with State each one wasn't technically covered in the policy and we didn't expect to get anything. In each case they paid out in full with no arguments - in the one case though they wisely suggested I change my insurance policy so there wouldn't be a repeat (I was using my car for commercial insurances and only had private cover). For that reason I have always stuck with them even when other companies have offered cheaper policies.
However, no doubt there are plenty of people out there with bad experiences of State as well - it may just come down to the luck of the draw of who the claim assessor is.
BenWilson, in reply to
Perhaps it will qualify as a write-off after it's been bulldozed?
It seems like the ultimate in bullshit to only cover for repairs on something that can't be repaired. And yes, that occurred to me, that if they will only pay for repairs, then they can bloody well repair it, fully, on-site, then David could have it removed and put on a new section. Or perhaps removed and then repaired. Then they can decide if they think that's cheaper than just honoring the whole point of a total replacement policy.
Awful sinking feeling reading this post, starting with the absolute, utter heartbreaker of an opening paragraph.
I may have also said some unladylike words. Probably even, like Emma, some ladypart ones.
I should think Radio NZ's science columnist (whatever his sketchy understanding of lifeboat theories) would be in a position to at least make some noise about this? Go to it. We have your back.
Oh sweethearts. I am so very sorry that this has happened. All of it.
Fooman, in reply to
I’m not entirely sure it would survive a trip. But the same idea has occurred to me – and it may be worth a go.
Especially as it is so obviously a requirement for repair, I am sure that the insurance company would pay for it and/or any damage sustained.
Have you had a chat to your bank*. I don't think they will be too happy about having an asset in which they hold an interest being devalued by being on land that will not be able to be sold/inhabited.
*this assumes that the income from sucking at teh teat of public radio and private wordsmithing is not quite sufficient to free you from the tyranny of a mortgage.
BenWilson, in reply to
I'm not entirely sure it would survive a trip. But the same idea has occurred to me -- and it may be worth a go.
It might indeed. I've moved one house before, and it is quite incredible what can be done, well worth the inquiry. I had mine cut in half right down the middle so that it could be taken down a narrow driveway to the subdivided section I had purchased. The machines used and the skills of the operators were amazing, to say the least.
Edit: Also, bear in mind that a house stuck on the back of a trailer which then (in my case) travels 300 kilometers along winding state highways and bumpy urban streets, is probably undergoing similar stress to an earthquake. They know how to put them on there so they won't fall off or break!
This really blows. I saw a tweet from Jen yesterday, and was thinking that you'd be in line for a better payout via the insurance company, and I'm just shocked by this. This can't be how it was supposed to be.
Older son is incensed on your behalf, and suggests that if you aren't allowed to rebuild on the land itself, you consider the obvious alternative... the river.
Yes, HOUSEBOATS. Take the side out of Avonside, and float your way out of the dilemma.
Sorry, marine-mad nine-year-old lateral thinking is the best I can offer right now.
Che Tibby, in reply to
according to the EQC it has over $200,000 worth of damage.
sounds like it’s money Tower is wanting to spend.
also, i'd be willing to unashamedly use your media skills here. the Press must have people looking for these stories.
This sounds so bad anyway you care to look at it
Firstly, do not panic, then complain, complain and use your contacts, there has to be a way through this mess and there will be
Insurance, I have always regarded it as a gamble, a bet but one that pays out if I lose. With hindsight, choosing your company is important, from memory the Consumer magazine gave good ratings to the ones set up for people in specific occupations, certainly my one has been good but then I am not in a city that's been munted
Wow. One word for your friendly insurance executives:
(unfair to looters, none of whom will have stolen anything anywhere close to $200,000, certainly not from one property)
the ultimate in bullshit
Precisely. What a bunch of fucking weasels. (Actually, I think that may be rather uncharitable to weasels.) RAGE.
Bloody hell. I really hope you can win this one, David, for yourselves, and for the other people who must be facing the same runaround from their insurers.
OK, I think I'll be removing my business from Tower and explaining why.
I'm not with Tower, but I just expressed my rage on facebook with a link to David's story. Regret this they will.
(Also, I found State to be bastards, AMI seem to have been fair to date).
Best of luck getting it fixed guys.
So, you're sitting there hoping for another big shake that takes your house out good and proper (hopefully when noone is home)?
What a shitty situation.
Just about time to reinsure our house, guess who doesn't get on the list for quotes...
We shifted houses from one property to another. It was mostly painless, although not damaged at the time... I'd get some quotes
Well, no surprises here! The Press will be interested in this David, and so should Campbell Live and Close Up be. Tower were called Government Life, were they not: something of a misnomer now? This development needs some air, to make them sweat and produce a spokesperson to try and justify such dirty dealing.
Im not right down with it, but isnt the government paying out red stickered and then they will negotiate with the insurance company?
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.