Welcome Guest

I think the insurance company would balk at arson.

Posted on: January 4, 2019 at 11:01:41 CT

DC Jayhawk KU

Posts:

7833

Member For:

17.67 yrs

Level:

User

M.O.B. Votes:

And likely put the onus on the homeowner to prove that they were not involved.

What I'm saying is that I can't imagine an insurance covering a fire set by a third party when the property owner knew it was coming.

Please explain why this message is being reported.

REPLY

MESSAGE THREAD

If I walk onto your land - tman MU - 1/4 10:44:58

You can't prove that was me(nm) - raskolnikov MU - 1/4 11:21:14

Now that was funny(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 11:26:06

The property owner, of course (nm) - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:15:40

the property owner, you idiot (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:07:35

God damn you are ignorant. (nm) - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:06:34

Can't have a discussion. Scream at the sky(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 11:07:32

your analogy would be apt if you asked "who is the victim - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:10:32

Neither side has to carry. It is all voluntary - tman MU - 1/4 11:13:26

You really struggle with the most basic of concepts (nm) - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:32:18

you're functionally retarded (nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:23:26

person A destroyed person B's property in your example. - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:23:00

lol(nm) - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:14:16

The victim is the property owner. - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:09:03

No there isn't in a pickles case. The driver of that car - tman MU - 1/4 11:11:02

And in pickle's example there is no property destruction - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:16:57

you're literally too stupid to discuss this with, apparently - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:08:39

There is no victim in either case(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 11:09:55

RE: There is no victim in either case(nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:10:55

This isn’t the same as Pickle’s example - mizzouSECedes STL - 1/4 11:04:02

and step into a hole and break my ankle and sue you for - Tigrrrr! MU

- 1/4 11:03:46

The property owner. - ummmm MU - 1/4 11:01:37

How is he a victim. He wasn't physical harmed and - tman MU - 1/4 11:08:59

You're confusing being the victim of an act with how it - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:12:32

Because his property was destroyed. - ummmm MU - 1/4 11:11:53

I can't believe there is any bit of confusion about this (nm) - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:19:09

I am - El-ahrairah BAMA - 1/4 10:58:25

Me because you committed an intentional act that resulted - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 10:53:12

Wrong. There is no victim of my actions(nm) - tman MU - 1/4 10:57:00

You've infringed upon someone's property rights - pickle MU

- 1/4 11:26:52

RE: Wrong. There is no victim of my actions(nm) - 90Tiger MU - 1/4 11:09:13

Yes there is. You're ignorant - MrBlueSky MU - 1/4 11:07:06

Then you have a weird definition of victim* - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 10:59:34

Your insurance will cover it. - Spanky KU - 1/4 10:55:37

That's irrelevant as to whether I am a victim - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:00:23

your property was the victim.. you are fine - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:07:34

lol well not under the law - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:08:57

if anyone will be the victim, it is the insurance company - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:14:55

lol no. If you destroy my property, I am the victim - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:16:14

lighten up, Francis - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:20:15

Doubtful. - DC Jayhawk KU - 1/4 10:56:59

Fire damage is insured - Spanky KU - 1/4 10:58:13

I think the insurance company would balk at arson. - DC Jayhawk KU - 1/4 11:01:41

I don't think the property owner knew it was coming in the - ummmm MU - 1/4 11:03:09

Yeah, I introduced something that wasn't stated. - DC Jayhawk KU - 1/4 11:05:34

I don't think the onus is on the homeowner to prove - Spanky KU - 1/4 11:06:50

No different than the car example below - tman MU - 1/4 10:58:04

No you are still a victim, regardless how you remedy the - Ragnar Danneskjold MU

- 1/4 11:01:38