Nagel Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 As far as I remember from when I last read my household insurance cover it excluded cover on riots and civil commotion. If that's the case then how are the people who are burned out of their homes ever going to get back on their feet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 A lot of policies do have civil unrest, riot and the like covered under their force majeure exclusions, and I was wondering the same as you earlier on. If some braindead vandal has come along and set your house and car on fire as part of the jolly wheeze known as a riot and your insurance is null and void because of a force majeure exclusion where do you stand? It's not like many people have got £100k in their bank accounts to rebuild their homes, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 9, 2011 Share Posted August 9, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100-million The taxpayer pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagel Posted August 9, 2011 Author Share Posted August 9, 2011 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-cost-taxpayer-100-million The taxpayer pays. I'm happy to pay. We're all in this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I'm happy to pay. We're all in this together. I don't think everyone is happy to pay... http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=835115&highlight=insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grappler Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I think people would be willing to pay IF the people who caused this also paid the correct price, not a slap on the wrist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 This is a completely different situation though, isn't it? It's hardly saying, 'I didn't think of having insurance before- will you help me by giving me replacements for my lost things?' is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 This is a completely different situation though, isn't it? It's hardly saying, 'I didn't think of having insurance before- will you help me by giving me replacements for my lost things?' is it? She didn't have insurance for arson. The major damage caused by the rioters has been through arson. I suppose we should ask all victims if they have had a holiday to turkey to work out whether they are deserving or undeserving poor due to the actions of criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medusa Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 She didn't have insurance at all- that's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 She didn't have insurance for arson. ... So presumably she will seek compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.